Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Hostages

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he taking to seek to secure the release of John McCarthy.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We are delighted that the former American hostage, Mr. Frank Reed, has confirmed that John McCarthy is alive and in reasonable health. Mr. Reed's release indicates that Iran and Syria can, if they wish, secure the release of hostages in Lebanon. We shall persevere with our efforts to persuade them that continued holding of hostages is in nobody's interest. We believe that this is true both in Lebanon and elsewhere.

Mr. Barnes: Just what are the efforts that the British Government are involved in? Will they stop taking are intransigent stance and seek to develop a position in which they can at least talk about the possibility of diplomatic relations being established with the problematic regimes of Iran and Syria? Will they take a lead from the President of the United States, who has condemned all hostage taking in the middle east, including the Israelis taking Palestinian hostages, and will he be willing to use third parties such as the United States to achieve results similar to those that that country has achieved?

Mr. Hurd: We follow up every lead and piece of information which we think might be promising and we use every contact that we think might bring results. I have discussed our position with the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, in the past few days and it is on all fours with United States policy. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave, he would have heard me say that I believe that the principle that the continued holding of hostages is in nobody's interest is true in the Lebanon and elsewhere.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to approach this matter is this? There are three British hostages, one Irish British hostage, and Roger Cooper who has been languishing in prison in Tehran for some four years and was near release last year when certain events took place. How far can we get towards effectively implementing their release without the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria? I ask about the two countries separately.

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Cooper. It is true that we have three substantial problems with Iran: the hostages; Mr. Cooper, who has been in prison for four and a half years; and the Rushdie affair, in which the Iranians maintain their threat to the life of a British citizen as well as making demands of the British Government which we could not meet. It is worth recalling that it was the Iranians who broke with us. To be precise, the Majlis passed a resolution in February last year demanding that we show respect for Islam, withdraw our support for Rushdie and his book and express regret at the offence caused to Muslims. When we rejected that, they broke off relations. I have made it clear that we have indirect contacts with Iran, and I do not rule out the possibility of direct talks if we felt that they were likely to produce results, but the restoration of diplomatic relations against such a background is certainly not a matter for the British Government alone.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Syria. We broke with Syria in 1986 over state-supported terrorism and that issue remains unresolved. We have had indirect contacts with Syria since then on behalf of hostages.

Sir David Steel: As the Foreign Secretary correctly said, we broke off diplomatic relations with Syria and Libya some time ago for good reason, but now that other Governments have acknowledged the helpfulness of the Syrian and Libyan Governments with the release of hostages, is not there a case to reconsider reopening diplomatic relations with those two countries?

Mr. Hurd: As I said in my original answer, according to what we have heard the Syrians have been helpful with the release of the American hostages. I welcome that, as do the Americans, but it does not remove the background that I mentioned. Obviously, the future nature of our contacts with Syria must depend on their prospects for success.

Mr. Adley: We all utterly deplore without reservation the taking of hostages, but do not the Israelis take hostages just as the Iranians have done? Is not one of the problems the fact that in the middle east we are not perceived to be even handed in the way in which we deal with people who behave in that way?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that my original reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), which I have already repeated once, will reassure my hon. Friend when he studies it. The process of hostage taking is a dangerous and criminal affair by whomever it is done.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be no deals that reward hostage taking or give incentives to further hostage taking? That being so, will he respond to the charges made by the released United States hostage Mr. Frank Reed and by Mr. al-Shara the Syrian Foreign Minister that the British Government are not being sufficiently active in their efforts to release the hostages? Will he assure the House that the Government are active day in and day out in their efforts to secure the release of the British hostages? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the British people, seeing hostages of other nationalities being released, have every right to expect the release of the British hostages?

Mr. Hurd: They have every right to expect what the right hon. Gentleman asked for—day in and day out efforts on our part with that aim. I can assure him that


those efforts continue. I have every sympathy with Mr. Frank Reed, who has survived a terrible ordeal, but of course he is in no position to know anything about our efforts on behalf of the British hostages.
I do not regard the Syrian Foreign Minister as an entirely objective observer. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what our policy is. I think that it is a policy which he accepts, and it would be useful to have it on record as the policy of the House. We shall do everything that we can to bring about the release of all hostages, short of making concessions or striking bargains with those who hold them. That is because we want a safer world and not a more dangerous one.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not there a world of difference between doing a deal, striking a bargain and making an offer of something substantial which Iran and Syria want in return for release, and carrying on discussions and talks with a view to resolving differences between countries? Is not my right hon. Friend doing the latter and perfectly properly refusing to do the former?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend draws the borderline exactly where I do. It is perfectly right to have contact and discussions and it is utterly wrong to strike bargains or make concessions with those who have taken hostages.

German Unification

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet West Germany's Chancellor Kohl and the Foreign Minister to discuss German unification: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I meet Chancellor Kohl and the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic often. We did so at the special European meeting in Dublin on 28 April where we discussed German unification. I also met Herr Genscher at the NATO Council on 4 May and the two-plus-four meeting in Bonn on 5 May. I expect that there will be further contacts soon. We have made clear our long-standing support for German unity on the basis of free self-determination.

Mr. Skinner: Is not it a sad sight to see the Tory Government and politicians of all parties grovelling at the feet of the West German Chancellor about reunification? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that at the weekend the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated the No. 2 spot at the IMF to the Germans, along with the Japs, and Britain was relegated to No. 4? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that a large body of British people understand all too well that the West Germans are turning their economic power into political muscle and getting too big for their jackboots?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that there has been much grovelling. That is certainly not the accusation usually made against us. We have played a good and consistent role. We have maintained our support for the principle of German unification, as have successive Governments for many years, and we have helped to establish the machinery for making it clear that the external aspects of unification should be decided and pursued in an orderly way.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is it the judgment of my right hon. Friend that the new and negative Soviet attitude in the negotiations on arms control and reduction is due to the Soviet Union's desire to put pressure on the west in connection with German unification and membership of NATO? If so, is that not rather unwise in view of the state of collapse of its economy and its need for economic help from the west?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is right. There has been a stiffening of Soviet attitudes in the arms control negotiations, at the open skies conference and at the two-plus-four talks in Bonn. That stiffening owes much to the pressures on President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government, of which they now speak more openly. We wish to see perestroika and those policies succeed, but we shall not follow that aim at the expense of western interests or principles. It is in the interests of Britain and Europe that a united Germany should be a member of NATO.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to clarify the position following the two-plus-four talks as there appears to be some difference in interpretation between Chancellor Kohl and his Foreign Secretary? Where does the Foreign Secretary stand on the proposal made by the Soviet Foreign Minister to decouple external security issues from German unification?

Mr. Hurd: That proposal was not put forward by the Soviets at the talks—it was put to Herr Genscher by the Soviet Foreign Minister before the talks. Herr Genscher reported it to the allies and we agreed that we should examine it. I agree with Chancellor Kohl's comments. It would be wrong and possibly dangerous to uncouple or delink the internal and external aspects of German unification.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend spoke of his hopes that perestroika would succeed, although many people feel that it has failed. What view does he take about the increasing talk of the ungovernability of the Soviet Union? What effect will that have on the two-plus-four process? If it has delayed and slowed the settling of the external security position of a united Germany, will it also delay the unification process within Germany which is moving ahead so strongly?

Mr. Hurd: The latter point is not likely to prove correct, but my right hon. Friend is right about the link between what is happening inside Soviet Union and the effect of its policies on the rest of us. The Soviet Union has three big problems—the national problem, the economic problem and the problem of the disintegration of the one-party state, all of which are developing rapidly and there is a limit to our influence on them. We must deal with the external aspect and maintain our principles and interests.

Mr. Kaufman: With regard to the implications of German reunification for NATO, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister said after her meeting in Bermuda with President Bush that she continued to advocate the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons? President Bush has now announced that they will not be modernised. With whom does the Foreign Secretary agree—the President or the Prime Minister?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has manufactured a difference which simply does not exist. A replacement for Lance has been abandoned by the United States and by the


alliance because circumstances have changed, but the President and the Prime Minister—in Bermuda and sine—have been absolutely clear that NATO will continue to need a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapon; in Europe. I hope that the Opposition concur with that.

Lithuania

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement or Her Majesty's Government's policy on the present situation in Lithuania.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Soviet Union about Lithuania.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have repeatedly stressed the need for progress through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians so that a settlement acceptable to both sides can be reached enabling the Lithuanian people to decide their own future That was the theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's message to the Prime Minister of Lithuania when the latter made a very welcome call on her at 10 Downing street this morning.

Mr. Jack: Many of my constituents would encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his endeavours to encourage the brave people of Lithuania in their fight for freedom. To that end, do the British Government properly recognise the legitimate claims of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia in their quest for freedoms Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about the practical steps being taken to encourage them in their quest?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right and it is well known on both sides of the House that no British Government have ever accepted the incorporation of the Baltic states as a result of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. We must now advise on and address from outside the question of how it is most likely that their right can be achieved. It would be irresponsible to lead them to believe that help of a kind that cannot in reality be forthcoming from the west could be so forthcoming. We are urging on both sides a diplomatic and constitutional process that will lead to their right being made a reality.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Government recognise the importance of negotiations, have they stressed to President Gorbachev in particular the need to recognise the Helsinki agreement and the rights of people to determine their own internal and external political status? If we are to encourage the President of the USSR to come to the negotiating table, will the Minister stress that the west wants to speak with one voice and to achieve a resolution through integrity and dignity and not through force? We will not stand by and see any more Munichs or Czechoslovakias.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady is entirely right. I am happy to say that we see no prospect of that, but if there were to be suppression in the way that the Czechoslovakian, Hungarian or East German people were suppressed by tanks and overt force, all the gains that have been made in east-west relations would surely be lost. I am

sure that Mr. Gorbachev understands that. It is worth remembering that it is very unlikely that the Baltic states would have this glimmer of real hope ahead of them if Mr. Gorbachev was not in place in the Soviet Union.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us were able to meet Mrs. Prunskiene, the Lithuanian Prime Minister today, and were very impressed with what we saw and heard? Will my right hon. Friend comment or the Lithuanian view that pressuring Mr. Gorbachev helps rather than hinders him in his fight to maintain democracy and reform in his country against the reactionary forces which would prevent not only independence for the Baltic states, but any reform throughout the Soviet Union?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to say that the two Prime Ministers left their meeting this morning saying that they saw eye to eye on those issues. Both were more optimistic and they agreed that there was no reality of progress without the development of a diplomatic and negotiated process. We see eye to eye on that.

Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread sympathy in the House for the ambitions of the people of the Baltic states for greater autonomy, but that the future of President Gorbachev and of his reform programme, both of which have contributed to allowing the Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian people to express their views now, are of acute concern to the Baltic states and to the world in general? Will the Minister adopt the wise and cool approach of the American Administration and continue efforts to get dialogue and negotiations going in a spirit of compromise between Moscow and the Baltic republics?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is very pleasant to hear from Opposition Members for the second time today the belief that American policy is our best touchstone in these matters, and I agree. The American President has behaved wisely and I am glad that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) joins us in stating that our exactly parallel policy—which has, of course, been discussed with the Americans—is the right one.

Mr. Quentin Davies: As it is clear that we have never recognised the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union and, therefore, that we still recognise those nations as independent states, may we have an assurance that the Foreign Office will apply without bias its usual criteria in recognising democratically elected Governments in those countries and will deal normally with them?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend conflates two things. We recognise states, not Governments. It is perfectly clear at present that there is no independent state of Lithuania to recognise. We wish to encourage the processes that could lead to that rightful outcome.

Kashmir

Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan concerning the situation in Kashmir.

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.

Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of India concerning the situation in Kashmir.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We are in regular contact with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments who are aware of our views on the current situation in Kashmir.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that Britain has a special role to play because two Commonwealth countries are in conflict? Does he agree that the most important thing is to make sure that that conflict does not reach the point at which armed conflict takes place? Has not the time come to bring in the United Nations as a mediator in that terrible conflict?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's desire that we should seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict. I hope that he accepts that it is primarily a matter for the two Governments involved. Indeed, under the 1972 Simla agreement, India and Pakistan resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them.

Mr. Madden: Why do the British Prime Minister and Government cheer the struggle for self-determination by the people of Lithuania but ignore the struggle for self-determination by the people of Kashmir? Will the Minister urge the Prime Minister and the British Government to persuade the Government of India to allow the people of Kashmir an early opportunity to determine the destiny of their own country? Will he also urge the Indian Government to lift the news blackout and allow a British parliamentary delegation to visit Kashmir at an early opportunity?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman considered the history of the position in Kashmir he would realise that there are few parallels with Lithuania. In the various United Nations resolutions on Kashmir over a long period the issue was always whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or India—not independence, which was never on the table.

Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the New Delhi-based report from the committee for initiative in Kashmir, which has confirmed not from Pakistani or international sources but from Indian sources the scale of the atrocities and repression that the people of Kashmir are suffering at the hands of Indian forces? Does he agree that the propaganda from India that the conflict is wholly caused by infiltrators from Pakistan is the most absurd nonsense? Can he tell the House why the Commonwealth seems incapable of taking any action in a dispute involving two Commonwealth member states?

Mr. Sainsbury: We are aware of the recent report on events in Kashmir, compiled by a four-member team on behalf of the committee for initiative in Kashmir. We are worried at the report from Jammu and Kashmir of abuses of human rights. My noble Friend the Minister of State made clear when speaking to the Indian Foreign Minister

the importance that we attach to respect for human rights. We have also made it clear that we cannot support those who use violence for political ends.

Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the disgraceful way in which the Indians have behaved in Kashmir and other areas, is not it surprising that Opposition Members have not called for sanctions, as they do for countries in other parts of the world?

Mr. Sainsbury: I share my hon. Friend's surprise to some extent. We should all combine to urge both sides of the conflict to show restraint and to follow up what they agreed to do in the Simla agreement, which is to seek to resolve their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.

Visas

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning delays in the processing of visa applications at United Kingdom high commissions and embassies.

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the procedure for processing visa applications at United Kingdom embassies and high commissions.

Mr. Sainsbury: We receive a number of representations, both from hon. Members and from the public, about entry clearance procedures and delays at our embassies and high commissions.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister give the House some assurance that Government policy will be changed soon to ensure that people who are applying for visas to this country are treated in a humane way rather than a squalid one and are not subject to the delays in which many representations have said the present policy results? Such practices do the British Government and the British people no credit and I hope that the Minister will ensure that the current situation is not allowed to continue.

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Lady that we keep our systems, procedures and facilities under constant review. I look into any complaints about individual cases that are brought to us. If the hon. Lady has any, perhaps she could let me know so that I can have them investigated.
We strive to treat the different categories of visa applicants on a different and fair basis. The House may be aware that the vast majority of visit visa applications in the Indian sub-continent are dealt with within 24 hours, but settlement visa applications obviously require a longer procedure and more inquiries.

Mr. Worthington: Is not it obvious to the Minister that something more needs to be done, as the complaints are always from black countries rather than white ones? The Government should get rid of the suspicion that their immigration policy, either operated at Lunar house in this country or at their overseas embassies, seeks to ration applications and treats unfairly those applications from members of the black Commonwealth. Something more active needs to be done than what the Government are now proposing.

Mr. Sainsbury: I totally reject the suggestion that then is some discrimination on grounds of colour in our visa policy. We get complaints about delays and the procedures from many countries, including eastern European ones. It is not without significance that the total number in the queue awaiting interview at the end of 1979 was 42,800 whereas now it is 7,104.

Mr. Dickens: Was not it the Labour party that gave two amnesties to illegal immigrants? Was not it this Government who promised firm but fair immigration controls? When issuing visas for visiting the United Kingdom, we must take great care and that means taking time. Sometimes it is understandable that such care meant taking time at our embassies.

Mr. Sainsbury: On that matter, as on many others, my hon. Friend is entirely correct when he states the Opposition's policy. In the case of applications for settlement in this country, we need to make certain inquiries, and if we are to do that fairly, a little time required. Equally, we seek to deal with all applications for visit visas as quickly as possible, and the greatest number of those are dealt with within 24 hours.

Mr. Boswell: Bearing in mind the recent events in eastern Europe and the large number of people who will want to travel from there either for holidays or for working holidays, will my hon. Friend keep in mind the possibility of relaxing the visa provisions so that, apart from anything else, we do not build up large quantities of unconvertible foreign currencies to match the visa applications that are extremely expensive for the applicant?

Mr. Sainsbury: We keep the possibility of relaxation under constant review and we have just agreed, under a European Community initiative, that we are prepared to negotiate a visa abolition agreement with the German Democratic Republic. We are responding to the increasing demand from eastern Europe wherever possible by allocating increased resources for the visa-issuing procedures in those countries.

Mr. Foulkes: But does not the Minister accept that there is widespread and genuine concern both in the House and beyond about the confusion, overcrowding, long waits and delays that many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his recent visit to India, have experienced? They have seen the queues, the confusion and the unfortunate circumstances in which people have to queue. Instead of dealing with this in an ad hoc way, as the Minister implied in his earlier reply to my hon. Friends, would he seriously consider initiating a special and systematic review of the staff complements and procedures in our embassies and high commissions for dealing with the problem, to see if we can alleviate it and treat people in the civilised manner they deserve?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that there are substantially fewer people queueing now than 10 years ago and delay times are substantially less than they were a year or two ago. I do not think that a review at any one moment is a sensible way forward, because we wish to allocate resources to meet requirements that change from time to time, even from month to month, and vary between different countries and

different posts in the same country. Therefore, we believe that the best way forward is to keep under constant review the queue lengths, number of applicants and resources we have, particularly of manpower, at each post.

Hong Kong

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the Chinese Government in respect to Hong Kong; and what confidence-building measures Her Majesty's Government have urged the Chinese Government to implement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): The Chinese ambassador called on the Prime Minister on 16 March to discuss Hong Kong and other issues of common concern. Our ambassador in Peking is in frequent contact with the Chinese Government; and the Sino-British joint liaison group met in Peking from 24 to 27 April. There is therefore a close and continuing dialogue. The Chinese Government have reiterated their commitment to the joint declaration and its implementation.

Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unhelpful, if not belligerent, comments coming out of China about the government of Hong Kong only cause instability that is not in the interests of Britain, Hong Kong or China? Does he agree that, if the Chinese Government were to continue such comments, they might invalidate the Sino-British agreement of 1984 by doing so?

Mr. Maude: As I have said, the Chinese Government have consistently reaffirmed their commitment to the joint declaration, which binds us and the Chinese Government to work together for the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We shall continue to work together to achieve that.

Mr. Tony Banks: When next discussing Hong Kong matters with the Chinese Government, will the Minister raise the issue of trade in ivory between China and Hong Kong? Dr. Leakey has recently been saying that there is to be an extension of the reservation on behalf of Hong Kong. As the Minister has an opportunity today, will he make it quite clear that in no circumstances will there be an extension of the reservation allowing further trade in ivory from Hong Kong beyond mid-July?

Mr. Maude: I am glad to take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no extension of the reservation. We said that there would not be, and there will not.

Mr. Banks: Thank you.

Sir Hal Miller: Does the Minister agree that it was because the events in Tiananmen Square undermined confidence that China accepted the principle of one country, two systems that there was such a loss of confidence in Hong Kong? What measures have our Government suggested to the Chinese Government to demonstrate to the people of Hong Kong that the concept of one country, two systems is alive and well?

Mr. Maude: The Chinese Government have specifically said and done nothing to undermine their commitment to the separate maintenance of the capitalist democratic system in Hong Kong. They have constantly reaffirmed


their commitment to the joint declaration, which retains that separate way of life in Hong Kong. We and the Hong Kong Government have taken a number of steps within our powers to reaffirm and reassert confidence in Hong Kong, and support by the Chinese Government for those moves would be helpful.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Will the Minister ask the ambassador to tell the Chinese leaders, when he meets them again, that it would help to build confidence in Hong Kong if we had a reassurance that after 1997 they will send into Hong Kong just the police and not the army? If they were to send in the 27th, I would not like it.

Mr. Maude: It was always understood that, once Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong returned in 1997, there would inevitably be a right for the Chinese Government to station troops in Hong Kong, should they choose to do so, but that troops could be there only for external defence purposes. We have constantly said that the way in which troops are deployed will affect confidence in Hong Kong.

Romania

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards free and fair elections in Romania.

Mr. Waldegrave: There has been some progress. The interim authorities have passed an electoral law and welcomed outside observers. But we remain concerned at the continuing allegations by some opposition parties that they are being unfairly treated during the election campaign.

Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the concern expressed, not least by the Church, which, after all, fired the revolution in Romania, about the unfairnesses to opposition parties? Will he make it absolutely clear to the Romanian authorities that continuation of reconstruction funds, and in particular know-how funds, will be dependent upon the election being seen as fully free and fair?

Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm that we have received a number of allegations, from both representatives of the Churches and from a wide variety of opposition groups. I am also delighted to reaffirm that not only Britain's support but the support of the European Community and the Group of 24 is clearly conditional upon progress and upon the legitimacy of the next Government in Romania. That depends on the fairness of the election. We have not released know-how funds to Romania. We do not yet believe that we should do so. We have given some humanitarian aid. We will watch the election carefully to see whether the conditions which we have all laid down are truly met.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In connection with travel between Romania and the United Kingdom, what progress has been made towards the abolition of the requirement for visas?

Mr. Waldegrave: These matters are discussed jointly with our European partners, because it is obviously sensible to try to move in step. So far, we have made a move in relation to the German Democratic Republic because that is a special case.

Sir Bernard Braine: Surely my right hon. Friend is now aware that the situation in Romania is deteriorating fast and that the prospect of the election later this month being either fair or free is fast disappearing. Is he aware that there is widespread intimidation, including physical harassment, of democratic parties and their leaders by the Communist provisional Government, and a refusal to provide them with the normal facilities of newspaper publicity and a share in broadcasts? Is he further aware that there will be no independent scrutiny of the voting or counting procedures in the election itself, and that the army will be taking the ballot boxes away for six days before the announcement is made? [Interruption.]
In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend persuade our European partners—

Mr. Cryer: Send an observer from the Lords to discuss abortion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should not barrack the Father of the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: In these disgraceful circumstances, will my right hon. Friend ensure that our European partners make it crystal clear that, unless the position changes quickly, there can be no aid or support after a fraudulent Government are returned?

Mr. Waldegrave: I wholly sympathise with the vehemence of my right hon. Friend's concern. No one in the House has done more than he has to support dissident minorities in eastern Europe. I am aware of many of the allegations that my right hon. Friend has repeated today, not least because he has brought them to my attention. That means that they have been brought clearly to my attention.
Because of the very concerns that my right hon. Friend expresses, we are paying for 12 additional observers from local government in Britain to go and observe the election, and the formidable duo of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is going from the House. I calculate that there will be about 100 other western observers, from a variety of countries and organisations. All this will help us to warn the Romanian authorities of the importance of having a free election, and will enable us to judge whether that election has been free.

Dr. Reid: Does the Minister accept that it is an unfortunate corollary of the development of free and democratic procedures in eastern Europe, including Romania, that views which are in themselves highly distasteful and highly dangerous are nevertheless tolerated lest it be felt that here is some impingement on the new freedoms? In exactly that context, we are seeing a new wave of anti-Semitism in Romania and throughout eastern Europe. What representations has the Minister made to combat the spread of this poisonous creed?

Mr. Waldegrave: I accept the implication at the start of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is perhaps inevitable that growing freedoms bring some of the unpleasant aspects of freedom. The only way to put down these unpleasant aspects is through true democratic parties fighting and winning the elections. We have been closely in touch in the Soviet Union and in other eastern European countries with groups that are trying to monitor


anti-Semitism and the resurgence of fringe fascist group of one kind or another. The best guardians against all that are free and fair elections.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend is right when he say that the Government are correct to offer encouragement and help to Romania and to other countries as they move towards what we hope will be free and fair elections. The news media also have a role to play. What are till Government doing to improve the quality and quantity of the broadcasts to eastern Europe by the world service of the BBC, as the countries in that area move towards the democracy that we all want to see?

Mr. Waldegrave: We have recently somewhat increased broadcasting on the world service to eastern European countries. However, there is in addition an important roll for what we might call the more ordinary media of the west to spotlight through television and newspapers what going on in those countries. I hope that representatives no only from this House and from other democratic Parliaments but many journalists will be observing those elections.

Guatemala

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about human rights it Guatemala.

Mr. Sainsbury: We have received a number of representations in recent months expressing concern about human rights violations in Guatemala.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware of the concern of various groups in Guatemala that there has been an increase in the activities of the death squads in that country? Many people expect that that increase in activity will increase further as Guatemala heads towards the elections. What steps will the Government take to monitor the situation there, and how will they put pressure on the Government of Guatemala to do what they can to stop the activities of these squads?

Mr. Sainsbury: I regret that there has been a marked deterioration over past months in the context of human rights, as the hon. Gentleman says. We do not think that the Government of Guatemala are themselves responsible for abuses, or that they encourage or condone violations. The problem is rather one of that Government's ineffectiveness in dealing with violations. We have made our views clear on the issue of human rights abuse and have expressed our concern about it on a number of occasions. In the past few months I have spoken about it to the Foreign Minister of Guatemala, to Vice-President Carpio and to the Interior Minister, Mr. Morales, when he was in London. On those three occasions, I emphasised the importance that we attach to an improvement in human rights.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: In considering these important matters, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that President Cerezo is the first directly elected President after 29 years of military rule? He has to cope with the murderous activities of far left guerrillas as well as with the activities of frustrated military potentates.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right to dray attention to the abuses of human rights by the Unidad Revolucionara Nacional Guatemalteca. We welcome the democratic elections of President Cerezo and hope that elections to be held later this year will also be free and fait and will continue the tradition of democracy recently established in Guatemala.

EC General Affairs Council

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items ht expects to be raised at the next meeting of the European Community General Affairs Council.

Mr. Maude: The Foreign Affairs Council on 18 June is likely to discuss, among other matters, political union preparations for the European Council meeting, EC-EFTA relations, EC-eastern Europe and EC policy towards the Mediterranean.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister take the opportunity of those and other meetings to register the strongest possible protest at the prolonged detention of Mr. Paul Ashwell as a hostage for his lorry's cargo in Greece? May I voice the growing protests of thousands of British lorry drivers that Mr. Ashwell is becoming the fall guy for the incompetence of the Department of Trade and Industry? May I invite the Minister to contrast the efficient and fair actions of the Turkish authorities in relation to the consignments bound for Iraq with the antics of the Greek authorities, who are supposed to be our European Community partners?

Mr. Maude: We have taken a number of opportunities to express to the Greek Government our concern about Mr. Ashwell's circumstances: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the case with the Greek Prime Minister on 28 April, our ambassador in Athens raised it with the Greek Minister of Justice on 2 May, and I raised it with the new Greek ambassador in London on Thursday last week. Our embassy in Athens remains in touch with Greek officials, and we hope that Mr. Ashwell's release will be secured before long.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend impress on the Ministers the fact that Britain is the only truly European country, as we have put most EC directives into law? Countries such as Italy speak loudly of political union, but until last summer it had passed only seven directives. It recently passed another 100, but still has about another 350 to go. While other countries do not keep to their European obligations, we do.

Mr. Maude: Certainly any scrutiny of the implementation of Community agreements shows our record to be exceptionally good—usually the best in the Community. Some other countries—my hon. Friend mentioned one —have a far poorer record. We attach great importance to meeting European obligations, and we are making a proposal to the European Commission that should emphasise the importance of so doing. Details will emerge before long. If we are to make a reality of Europe, we must ensure that agreements are implemented.

Mr. Ernie Ross: When the Minister attends the meeting, will he raise with our Community partners the appalling events that took place in the Jabaliya refugee camp on 26


April, when, as a result of excessive force used by the Israeli military, three Palestinians died and 215 were wounded? Will he remind our Community partners that they, like us, are signatories of the fourth Geneva convention and have a responsibility towards those Palestinian people? Will he encourage them to take the appropriate action?

Mr. Maude: We regularly raise those matters, and they are frequently discussed among the Twelve.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend also ensure that membership applications from Malta, Austria and Norway are not lost sight of?

Mr. Maude: At present, two applications are in front of the Community. There is general agreement among the Twelve that the Community has some major tasks to undertake in the near future. It would not be right to consider negotiations for further accessions for the next couple of years. It would be a surprise to most of us if it was still a Community of only 12 countries at the end of the century.

Mr. Winnick: Do the Greek authorities understand the immense harm that is being done to relations between our two countries as a result of the way in which Mr. Ashwell is being treated? If anyone is totally innocent in this whole miserable affair, it is him. Why are the Greek authorities insisting that there can be no bail? Is not it important for the British Government to make perfectly clear the strong feelings in Britain over what has happened? Great harm could be done—which is most unfortunate, as Britain and Greece are friends—to relations between our two countries if Mr. Ashwell stays in prison.

Mr. Maude: As has been said repeatedly, we fully accept Mr. Ashwell's innocence and have made that clear to the Greek authorities. We shall continue to press that case to make it clear to the Greek Government—as the hon. Member suggests—that there is strong feeling about this in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lester: In any other business that is discussed in the Council, will my hon. Friend consider the elections in Burma later this month? We have already heard indignation expressed about elections in Romania, but in Burma we have seen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this to do with Europe?

Mr. Lester: Yes. The European Community has already made a demarche to Burma about its elections, and it is concerned. Not only have the Burmese Government killed more people than died in Tiananmen square but they have enforced massive resettlements, imprisoned the official opposition and will take three weeks to complete the count. Should not the European Community represent strongly its views on elections that are no longer free or fair?

Mr. Maude: Certainly it is difficult to contemplate that an election during which the opposition are imprisoned is likely to be fair.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister share the sense of frustration at the stalling of the peace process in the middle east, in large part because of internal developments in Israel? Will he take this opportunity to urge our European partners to increase pressure on Mr. Shamir, and in

particular, to show that, if he persists in the policy of increasing or enlarging the existing, settlements in the occupied territories, or allowing Soviet immigrants to go there, that can have only a negative impact on the prospect of peace in the middle east?

Mr. Maude: Certainly recent events have stalled proceedings for the time being, but we shall urge that the new Israeli Government should pursue the Baker plan and get down to discussions with the Palestinians at the earliest possible date.

Angola

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the use of chemical weapons against UNITA forces in Angola by the MPLA.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are aware of the allegations that chemical weapons have been used by both sides in the Angolan conflict, but we have seen no proof of this.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will recognise that the continuing conflict in Angola is in stark contrast with the agreeable trend towards peace in Namibia and southern Africa generally. Will he consider using the information that he has to bring international pressure on the parties involved to come to a negotiated settlement?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. It is encouraging that the first direct contact between the Angolan Government and UNITA took place last week in Lisbon. We hope that that will be followed by further contacts. If it is, that will be thoroughly welcome to us and, I am sure, to both sides of the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that those of us who have seen children whose legs have been blown off by UNITA-planted mines and who understand the problems of both sides will encourage him in trying to find a solution to this dreadful war and in supporting the United Nations and Perez de Cuellar in so doing?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. The hon. Member draws attention to the fact that, as in Afghanistan, there will be a terrible task of rebuilding in Angola, even if war is successfully brought to a conclusion. I fear that the sort of casualties that he describes will go on for many years.

Eastern Europe (Elections)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about democratic elections in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The elections in the GDR on 18 March and in Hungary on 25 March and 8 April were free and fair. We hope that the forthcoming elections in Romania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia will be so too. I am glad that Members of this House are observing most of these elections under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We shall be sending teams of local government electoral officials to observe the elections in Romania and Bulgaria.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that our increasing levels of aid to eastern Europe are conditional on free and fair elections in countries there?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, this is extremely important, and we have made it clear to the countries concerned that the level of help, co-operation and friendship that they can expect to receive from us and from members of the European Community will be directly related to their progress in democratic and economic reform.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Soviet Government to the fact that there have been free elections in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? Will he also draw the attention of President Gorbachev to the fact that, while many of us support what he is doing, up to a point, Lenin in the early days of the Soviet state argued strongly for the self-determination of all peoples? That is why those three states got their self-determination. Even Stalin—it must have been an aberration—wrote a pamphlet on the rights of nationalities and said that self-determination was acceptable. Since those three states were democratic and free until they were occupied by the Soviet Government in 1940, let us make it plain that perestroika, democracy and freedom must apply when the people themselves decide what they want.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is right. Stalin allowed into the Soviet constitution—I think that it was in 1936 —a provision that republics could leave the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, he omitted to provide any way in which they could actually do that. That omission has recently been repaired by the Supreme Soviet. The principle of self-determination is accepted, as is the right of people in the republics to leave if that is their freely expressed wish. We now need a discussion or a dialogue between the Baltic republics—first, Lithuania—and the authorities in Moscow to bring that about in an orderly and sensible way.

Hostages

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in establishing the whereabouts and procuring the release of British subjects held prisoner by Arab or Iranian terrorist groups in Lebanon.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are encouraged by the recent release of a number of hostages in Lebanon. We are especially pleased that one of those released has confirmed that Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Keenan are alive. We very much hope these turn out to be the first moves towards freedom for all hostages. There has certainly been progress, but there have been previous disappointments. It could be a long process.

Mr. Latham: Stripped of diplomatic verbiage, is not the honourable course for Iran and Syria to get these entirely innocent people released forthwith and the death threat to Mr. Rushdie lifted, following which it will be possible to consider the resumption of normal diplomatic relations?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend draws clear attention to some of the difficulties that lie between us and Iran.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

SAFEGUARDS FOR RESIDENTS IN REGISTERED HOMES

Ms. Harriet Harman presented a Bill to extend legal safeguards for residents in registered residential care homes and nursing homes; to extend the Registered Homes Act 1984 to cover homes with fewer than four residents; to require the police to disclose to registration authorities any relevant criminal convictions of someone applying to register a home; to require all registered homes to have a complaints procedure; to give residents in registered homes the right to an advocate on their behalf; to require that nursing procedures in registered homes are only carried out by trained nurses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Numbering of Premises

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that commercial, industrial and certain other premises in built-up areas shall display the street or other number of the address of such premises.
Although my intention is that the Bill should apply to the whole country, London is governed currently by the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. Section 11(1) of that Act provides:
The Council"—
in those days, that meant the London county council—
may order that any buildings in any street way, place row of houses or block of buildings shall for the purpose of distinguishing them be marked (whether already marked by a number or name or not) with such numbers or names or numbers and names as may be specified in the order or shown upon a plan referred to in the order and that any existing numbers or names which differ from those specified in the order shall be abolished.
As if that were not enough, section 12 states:
The Council shall make regulations with respect of the marking of the numbers or names or numbers and names of buildings … and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision such regulations may provide for the number or name … of any building to be marked in some appropriate position either on the building or on some part of the premises of which the building forms part as may be prescribed by the regulations.
As I am not a lawyer, I do not, thank God, have to attempt to understand all that. Indeed, if my Bill were given leave to proceed, there would never be any need for any lawyer to attempt to understand those provisions ever again. The problem with the sections to which I have referred is that there are too many "mays" and not enough "shalls". The result is complexity of legislation and ignorance of the regulations. This has led to widespread indifference.
I emphasise that the Bill would cover commercial and industrial premises only. It does not attempt to cover houses, and nor does it attempt to cover places in the country. For example, Rose cottage, Great Snoring in the Marsh, would not have to be called No. 10 The Street. It could retain its picturesque name, which doubtless adds greatly to its value.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill because there must be many, many people throughout the country who, every

day, set out to find certain premises that they have not visited before. They may want to go to a travel agent. They look up the address in the telephone directory, and see it listed as No. 133 High street. London is full of high streets, and some of them have numbers going up to 1,000 plus.
People are at a disadvantage because they do not know at which end of the street to start because most of the premises do not display street numbers. They either walk or drive along the road, but perhaps only one in every 10 or 12 premises has a number. Even if they find No. 100, for example, they would not know which way to go. They would have to walk past another 10 or 12 premises until they found the next number, which might be No. 90—so they would have to turn around and walk back again. Some roads have odd numbers on one side and even numbers on the other; others are numbered consecutively. People do not know which side of the street they are on. They do not know whether they are going this way or that way, or whether they are coming or going.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in his seat because there are well-documented instances of people driving their cars into other cars because they are concentrating on looking for street numbers. That has caused a number of accidents. If I were given leave to introduce the Bill, and it was allowed to proceed, people would no longer have to put up with the aggravation of trying to find premises. Their blood pressure would go down, which would benefit the National Health Service, insurance premiums would go down, and any number of other benefits would flow.
I hope that I shall be given leave to introduce my Bill and that the House will allow me to proceed with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugo Summerson, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Keith Mans, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Patrick Thompson.

NUMBERING OF PREMISES

Mr. Hugo Summerson accordingly presented a Bill to require that commercial, industrial and certain other premises in built-up areas shall display the street or other number of the address of such premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 4

GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS

Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move amendment No. 729, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
'Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Commission to require any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel or 5 to include any conditions requiring the licence holders to include party political broadcasts in the licensed service.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, we shall discuss the following: Government amendment No. 491.

Amendment No. 730, in page 29, line 4, leave out clause 33.

Government amendments Nos. 670 to 672, 540, 471 and 543.

Mr. Raison: Coupled with amendment No. 729 is amendment No. 730, to leave out clause 33. That clause contains the power for independent television commissioners to require party political broadcasts.
My objective is to abolish any statutorily based requirements to carry party political broadcasts or independent television. I should like to see the end of party political broadcasts on independent television. If anyone is prepared to consider the matter from an objective point of view, he is bound to concede that I am putting forward an overwhelming case.
I am dubious about party political broadcasts on any channel. I do not want to see them at all and I do not think that anyone could possibly defend them on the ground of popularity. I have yet to meet anyone who said that he liked to see political broadcasts as part of hi regular fare. I am sure that all hon. Members know from anecdotal evidence that that is the case. It is difficult to establish a scientific basis for what I say. It is well known that regular research is carried out on party political broadcasts by the BBC. They look into the number of viewers for each broadcast and find out what people think of them. I believe that political parties also carry out research on such broadcasts and how they go down, but I have discovered that there is a notable lack of willingness on all sides to reveal the results of all that research. I wonder why.
Most of us suspect that if we got the results they would not look very impressive. I am told by one authority that one reason why research is not published is that there is an enormous variation between one broadcast and another and that publishing varying figures would give a misleading impression. I do not think that that is a persuasive argument. Results of research on any other type of programme would be published, and if they showed a variation one would say that it was rather useful research.
There are many popular legends about what happens when party political broadcasts come on. I shall not give details but none of the legends is based on the supposition that people want to stay glued to their sets.
Party political broadcasts have become slicker during the past few years. They are technically better managed than they used to be. I cannot help recalling the time in the mid-1970s, when I was shadow Minister for the Environment, and once or twice I was commissioned by Conservative central office to make a party political broadcast. It consisted of marching on to College green or St Stephen's green on a day when there was a howling gale and the wind was blowing about us—I am sure hon. Members today are familiar with this—to utter a few, well-chosen platitudes.
It is one of the more futile forms of broadcasting by any standards, but to try to do a party political broadcast against the background of a howling gale was not easy. It was not that I was not promoting a good cause. I was promoting the sale of council houses, which is one of the great achievements of our time. Somehow I could never bring myself to believe that the popular response to that cause had anything to do with what I said on St Stephen's green in a howling gale during a party political broadcast. It is perhaps relevant that shortly afterwards my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) would be rather better than I at standing on St Stephen's green in a howling gale to promote the cause and I retreated to the Back Benches.
Party political broadcasts have never been one of the highest art forms, although they have certainly become more skilful. I gather that the policy in such broadcasts now is to relegate the politicians and to bring in actors, who resemble what is deemed to be the common man.
Sometimes such broadcasts are skilfully done. I saw a Conservative broadcast last week about the community charge which was technically rather good. I suppose that it is possible that it was good enough to persuade some people how to cast their vote, but I doubt it. I do not believe that what changes people's minds about their voting behaviour has anything to do with party political broadcasts.
As a matter of principle, I do not believe that that is the way in which we should be putting our policies before the electorate. It is not the way in which we should be presenting our arguments, and it is not in accord with our notion of adult democracy. I should prefer the time allocated to party political broadcasts to be used for broadcasting the House of Commons. I looked into the possibility of inserting a provision to the effect that the time saved by not having party political broadcasts on ITV could be transferred to broadcasting the House. The trouble is that the Bill implements a decision by Parliament operating through an Act of Parliament, whereas the decisions about broadcasting the House are taken by resolutions of the House and it was rather difficult technically to incorporate such a measure.
3.45 pm
In general, I am sceptical about party political broadcasts, but if we must have them, and if there really is a need and a demand for them, why on earth should we have to have them on four, and now five different channels? Surely one or perhaps two transmissions of any party political broadcast must be quite enough. Surely it is quite reasonable to confine them to the BBC, as I propose. After all, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has said time and again, the Bill is about choice and diversity. To transmit the same party political broadcast


on five different channels in any one week cannot be said to have much to do with choice or anything to do with diversity. Even the FA cup final and the Derby are not broadcast on every channel, so why on earth should party political broadcasts be so broadcast? I really cannot believe that we as politicians require to bind to ourselves a semi-captive audience.
Having put the case, which, considered objectively, must be conceded to be a powerful one, may I say that what amazes me about the Bill is that my hon. and learned Friend, in amendment No. 670, proposes to make the powers in the Bill stronger and to insist more firmly on the provision of party political broadcasts on independent television. His amendment changes the provision in clause 33, which states that a licence for Channel 3, 4 or 5 "may" include a requirement for party political broadcasts, to say that it "shall" include such a requirement. It introduces compulsion.
According to an article by Mr. Alan Boyle, entitled,
Political Broadcasting, Fairness and Administrative Law",
the present position is that
Neither the BBC nor the IBA is obliged to carry party political broadcasts, but they have in practice always done so
Until now there has been no legislative requirement for party political broadcasts, but amendment No. 670 proposes to change the "may" provision into a "shall" provision. It would be a regressive step to impose party political broadcasts so that all viewers of independent television were bound to be faced with them sooner or later.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think again that the Government will relent in their view and, will let us all off what by any standards would be an unloved imposition.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The issue of party political broadcasts arose in Committee almost inadvertently, because it appeared that the Bill as drafted might by a side wind have done away with the established practice of providing party political broad-casts, which, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, is not rooted in the law.
It is important to consider why we have party political broadcasts and do not rely on other communications media to get across the message of different political parties.
Democracy depends very much on the direct communication of the messages of the parties that the public must evaluate in deciding how to vote. Other methods of communicating with the public at large depend on a filtering process, a process of editorialising and a process of comment. Although that is necessary and desirable, it is not sufficient. Political parties should be able to convey their message to the public by the most modern means of communication available—broadcasting—unadorned by the intervention of editorial comment.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that more parliamentary coverage might suffice, but that argument cannot be sustained for a minute. In deciding what images from this place to portray on the television screen, we are properly seeing the editorial process at work, but we are not seeing the direct communication of a message. Those who view the proceedings of this place

—no doubt it is a powerful image and a clear message —form their own judgment. The case for maintaining party political broadcasts is strong.
It is not entirely surprising that a Conservative Member is attempting to do away with party political broadcasts, because, by and large, the Conservative party commands the ownership of the written media of communication, and the editorial policy of most of the newspapers is extremely sympathetic to it. A predominance of coverage of the Government flows from that. It is clear from the studies that have been carried out, including that recently published by the Hansard Society, that the Government of the day overwhelmingly dominate the broadcast proceedings of the House. Inevitably, a bias in favour of the Government is built into the system, because, through their announcements and comments on what is happening, they make the news. It is important to have another source of political opinion—that of the parties.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury rather frivolously suggested that the party political broadcast is an art form. Few people would subscribe to that view. It is widely recognised to be the deadliest of boring topics, but that does not mean that it is not worthy of being seen.
The right hon. Gentleman recognised that the party to which I have the honour to belong produced one of the most informative party political broadcasts on the virtues of fair voting and proportional representation. It was entertainingly and memorably presented by John Cleese. It was extremely effective in showing that it is not necessary to be dull to convey a message. It is right that the format of the broadcasts in which the right hon. Gentleman participated more than a decade ago was different from that which has become common under Mr. Peter Mandelson and other skilled performers.
Any attempt to curtail the direct communication of political parties with the public by the most modern medium of communication, which has the greatest coverage, would be a retrograde step and not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, a progressive one.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Compared with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), all hon. Members are irredeemably frivolous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) deserves the gratitude of the nation. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that our great party—perhaps I might even say, "my" great party—is not well loved at the present time. I need only remind the House of the Mid-Staffordshire by-election, the public opinion polls and the local election results, although I confess that in certain parts of the country there were lights at the ends of all sorts of tunnels. None the less, at the moment the Conservative party is not particularly popular.
Many of my colleagues in the Conservative party and in the 1922 Committee are worried about their fates. What would they do if they were to lose their seats? Newspaper advertisers from California and Phoenix, Arizona are looking for footmen and butlers. Who better than a Conservative Member of Parliament to take red wine out of the fridge and who better than his wife to do the gardens for them? The only other possible option for a defeated Conservative Member is to read the weather on British television. How splendid it would be if we Conservative


Members who must have a publicity fix every morning it order to function could end our days as weathermen or BBC1.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Here is a frivolous intervention.

Mr. Critchley: In that case, I will give way.

Mr. Maclennan: Regardless of what other career might be suitable for the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), he would fail at broadcasting the weather if he did not have a Scottish accent.

Mr. Critchley: I confess that I would be comprehensible. My message to the country each day would be to wrap up warmly. Having done that before the 9 am news I would be my old self.
I have a suggestion or two for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House which, if they were to be adopted, might bring about a remarkable revival in the fortunes of the Conservative party. First, the British sausage must be defended at all costs against the Common Market. There is every sign that, on the issue of the British sausage, our great leader stands firmly in her place.
The second practice that the Conservative Party might adopt to recapture the affection of the electorate is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested, to do away with the party political broadcast. Having had high tea at 5.30 pm, we all know that the British wish for nothing more than to slump in front of the set from 6.30 pm until 11.30 pm, rising only for calls of nature or to switch channels halfway through a programme.
However, as soon as the news dawns on them that a much-loved politician of any party is about to embark on a five-minute broadcast of mendacity, assertion and amplification, up they get. They go into the kitchen; switch on the stove and brew a hot milky drink. They take no notice of the pleas of our political masters, whether they be in Smith square or in Walworth road.
At the moment, the Tory party has earned the gratitude of the manufacturers of Ovaltine. Let us set our sights higher. Let us look for the resumption of our natural popularity. Put the British sausage first and with the cancellation of party political broadcasts, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may even get a fifth term of office.

4 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is persuasive on many issues, but not on this one. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) presented the more accurate face of the Conservative party. I was not surprised, but I was concerned, by the way in which the right hon. Member for Aylesbury was anxious to move towards a free market in the dissemination of news to the electorate from political parties.
I should regard the abolition of party political broadcasts as a step backwards. For all their faults of production and presentation, they are an established means of communication and the best means we know of mass communication with large sections of the electorate. They reach more people than any other method could

achieve. I should find it worrying if we moved towards ever greater deregulation of the way in which political parties can communicate with the electorate.
There is already an astonishing paradox in our electoral laws. There are the strictest controls over what candidates can spend in their constituencies, but no controls whatever over the amount of money that can be spent at national level on advertising by the various political parties.
I am not surprised that far and away the richest party —the Conservative party—is basically in favour of a free market. The one area of news coverage and communication where there is some regulation, where party political broadcasts have been developed over the years, and where news coverage is required to he fair and impartial is BBC radio and television, and ITV. In that area, the Government are moving towards greater deregulation. Although it is not spelt out in the Bill, I fear that, before long, some Conservative Members may argue that parties should be allowed to pay for commercials on television in the horrendous fashion that we see in other countries.
The great advantage of the party political broadcast is that it enables political parties to reach the maximum possible audience fairly and in a regulated way. The practice has developed over a long period and it is a part of our democratic process. It may be a part which one can deride in some respects—I acknowledge that some of the party political broadcasts are dreadfully bad—but it is a part of our democratic process which has been worked on over the years. It is worrying to notice the ease with which hon. Members can recommend in apparently innocuous amendments to a Bill that an important part of our democratic process should be discarded.
What is particularly worrying about the whole Bill is that, if the philosophy behind it is allowed to develop—I shall do all I can to see that it does not—and a less regulated system is created, the method by which our people receive news information will become less and less reliable. Some of that information is gained from the admittedly partisan means of party political broadcasts. Information will come from more and more channels with smaller audiences and there will be fewer requirements for fairness and impartiality.
The general election that we are approaching could be the last in which we can be fairly certain that the vast majority of the electorate receive at least an attempt at a fair exposition of the news, governed by regulations on balance between the parties. Again, the party political broadcasts are a manifestation of that
I fear that we shall have a system with numerous channels, many without any news programmes or without news programmes in prime time, and with no guaranteed means by which people can obtain political information. I am profoundly relieved, and impartial and fair Members of Parliament should be relieved too, that all the opinion polls show us that most people in Britain are more likely to trust the broadcast media than the press for their information about politics. Thank heaven for that. The press is not subject to any requirements for fairness and impartiality.
If we accept the amendment, we shall be in danger in a few years of leaving only one area of competition between the parties that is strictly regulated for fairness. That will be the area of expenditure by individual candidates in constituencies—a regulation which everyone regards as absolutely essential to the democratic process. After the abolition of party political broadcasts, everything else—


national expenditure by the parties, advertising, access to the news media—will be deregulated apart from that one, relatively unimportant, area of competition.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Given the hon. Gentleman's curiously old-fashioned view about the wonderful nature of party political broadcasts, he has failed to note one important change. He argues that strict impartiality is the key. Now that the House is broadcast and Mr. Speaker maintains a strict impartiality over all of us, those broadcasts are a far better way in which to transmit political messages fairly than any party political broadcast.

Mr. Grocott: Hon. Members may enjoy their own speeches, and I am sure that most of the demand for cassettes are from Members wanting a record of their speeches—I am sure that there is little demand from the public. A properly presented party political broadcast is a much more effective way in which to present the views of a party to the electorate than a random selection of speeches from individual hon. Members.
We all know that the party political broadcast is open to fun and jest, but if we slung that part of our democracy aside, we would be abandoning the best established means of communication, bearing in mind the millions that television can reach. We would abandon such broadcasts in favour of a free market view of competition between the parties, and we would never achieve fairness and impartiality. I hope that we throw the amendment out.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have always believed that the allocation of time for party political broadcasts on television and radio is at least an attempt at fairness that is never matched by the daily national press. Arangements for allocating as fair an amount of space in the press would be an important development and would ensure some degree of equality between the political parties. However, we know that most of the daily press, national and provincial, tends to support the Conservative party and therefore there have been no efforts to introduce even a shadow of fairness and equality into the press.
The party political broadcast is a fair target for criticism and mockery. Although the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has set his target on the party political broadcast he has not evidenced any criticism of the interruptions to programmes from advertisements. Such advertisements are far more mendacious than party political broadcasts and the advertisers unscrupulously abuse every human emotion on which they can lay their hands in order to sell products. Any criticism should be levelled against such advertisers rather than against party political broadcasts.

Mr. Critchley: Is the hon. Member aware that all the evidence shows that commercials are far more popular than any of the programmes?

Mr. Cryer: I have seen no such research and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury did not adduce any research about party political broadcasts. He merely said that there was an absence of such research and that, therefore, such broadcasts must be unpopular. Whatever people may think of advertisements must involve an element of masochism on their part because most adverts tend to abuse every decent human emotion.

Mr. Raison: A lot of research is carried out, but the interesting feature about it is the great reluctance to publish the outcome of it.

Mr. Cryer: What I am saying amounts to the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to invoke that research because of a lack of publication.
Party political broadcasts invoke a certain degree of fairness. I accept that the level of quality varies greatly. The Labour party is extremely short of money and often it must use the most limited means to produce a party political broadcast.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that the objections to party political broadcasts arose only once the Labour party started to turn out some extremely good ones?

Mr. Cryer: I was about to say that occasionally the Labour party has scaled the heights of stimulating public interest in television broadcasting. In the early 1980s there was a growing problem of racism in our society and the Labour party produced a broadcast about the association of racism, the far right fascist political parties and football supporters in such a way that it stimulated discussion virtually nationwide.
I can also recall when the Labour party took its courage in its hands and produced a party political broadcast about unilateral nuclear disarmament. I know that that is not the sort of thing that is much talked of in the Labour party these days, but it was a stimulating broadcast which challenged ideas. On occasions, those five-minute slots can produce debate, dissent and challenge in an entertaining way so that the ideologies capture the viewer's imagination. It is worth retaining that opportunity and the degree of fairness rather than discarding party political broadcasts and leaving them to what would inevitably be the free marketplace.
I share the suspicion of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that this is a precursor to giving political parties the opportunity to buy advertising space on television channels. That would mean that we would revert to the American system where the cost of elections is massive because the limitations on advertising costs in television and other media are extremely sloppy. We do not want to see that. I recognise the difficulties of producing party political broadcasts, but I certainly wish them to continue. I should like to extend the principle of fairness to our newspaper industry, but that seems a long way off.

Mr. Alistair Darling: It strikes me that this short debate is like having a party political broadcast in the middle of prime time evening viewing. We are between major debates on matters that are quite clearly of concern to people inside and outside the House. I make no criticism of the point raised by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) because the matter was raised in Committee.
I do not join in the eulogies for party political broadcasts that we have heard this afternoon. I am ambivalent about them. I do not know whether they are effective, and I suppose that it is not for us to judge, as we tend to be cynical about broadcasts produced by our opponents and by our own parties. However, they do have an effect and have moved on from the days when a grey man addressed the camera and told the audience what a


wonderful thing his party was doing to mini films, such a; Mr. Mandelson's magnum opus, "Kinnock—the movie." There was a memorable occasion during the elections last year when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes was filmed clutching a baby rabbit. I often wonder what happened to the rabbit: perhaps it went the same way as the mould breakers.
I do not know whether party political broadcasts work but I believe that on balance we should keep them. They provide an opportunity for parties, especially at election time, to make their pitch, whether good or bad. Until someone persuades me that the disadvantages of showing them outweigh the advantages, I think that they should be shown, even if it means a boost for the Ovaltine industry
I commend the Government for bringing forward the amendment promised in Committee to make it clear that if party political broadcasts are shown anywhere, they must be shown everywhere. It would not be right to force the BBC to carry them and to let other channels off, as has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury
I was concerned about the provision in the Bill that it might be possible for Granada Television to carry party political broadcasts and the neighbouring television franchise, Central Television, not to do so. Everyone muse be favoured or cursed with the same thing, or no one at all or there will be great inconsistencies. We welcome the Government's amendments and should not delay the House much more before pressing on to matters that, on any view, are of greater moment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Party political broadcasts, like the British weather or English cricket, are a target for mockery. I could contemplate living in a world without party political broadcasts, but that day has not dawned. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has been kind enough to make clear, the Bill reflects agreement between the parties on arrangements for the showing of party political broadcasts.
It is important that parties should have direct access to television. The extent of the direct access is fairly limited. It is not too high a price to pay for the absence of political advertising on television, which otherwise would have to come about; nor is it too high a price for the viewer to pay for the privilege of living in a democracy in which he has the luxury of choice, a luxury denied to well over 100 member nations of the United Nations. If part of the price that we pay for democracy is the party political broadcast, I cannot help feeling, when we look at the human misery in countries which have to suffer the broadcasts of one party incessantly, that we make a modest imposition on our broadcasters and fellow citizens.
4.15 pm
The reason for the Government amendments is to take account of the fact that the IBA was the broadcaster and could therefore direct the various constituent companies of the ITV network to show party political broadcasts. The ITC will not be the broadcaster. Therefore, we require a statutory framework.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was right in saying that the amendments make a requirement for all channels to show party political broadcasts but that they allow some regions to show different ones. Obviously the political position in Scotland is different from that in

England. The political message of a party may not be sc relevant in Land's End as it is in John o'Groats. For that reason flexibility is allowed.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, having aired this interesting topic, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House, may I reply to the debate?
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that he felt ambivalent about party political broadcasts. That has been the keynote of the debate. We have had some rum contributions. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) admitted that party political broadcasts could be dreadfully bad but somehow he saw them as a pillar of the constitution. I thought that speech was a hymn to regulation. He seemed to be terrified of anything other than the orderly provision by central authority of information on politics. I assure him that I am not a Tory stalking horse on this or any other matter. I was not put up by the Government to air a change. Indeed, the Government and I take different views.
I thought it strange that the hon. Gentleman should praise party political broadcasts for fairness and impartiality. The idea that they are models of impartiality is an altogether new twist to the argument which I did not expect to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer; seemed to be afraid of competition in the expression of opinions. I am not sure whether he was talking about commercial competition or whether he could not bring himself to bear the idea that people should express their views in different ways, without recourse to the mechanism that we are discussing.
I was not particularly persuaded by the arguments that have been put forward. No doubt the issue will rise again another day. As the House wants to get on to other business, I am happy not to press the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 315, in page 138, line 29, after 'means', insert
'a director of that body corporate, or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 316, 317, 345, 346, 349 to 353 and 318 to 320.

Mr. Mellor: Amendments Nos. 315, 316, 317 and 345 are minor technical amendments to part I of the schedule. The other amendments in the group deal with the undertakings which I gave in Committee about religious ownership; they allow the ITC to waive the disqualification of religious bodies, in the case of licences, to provide non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services. We discussed the issues in detail last night on the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the amendments as sensible and in line with well-known principle.

Mr. Darling: As the Minister has said, we welcome the vast majority of these amendments, and agreed them in Committee. I should like to ask a question about


amendment No. 352. Quite clearly, the idea is that, when dealing with religious organisations, the commission can at its discretion waive the normal requirements about restrictions on ownership. What criteria are to apply, and where might one find them? Plainly, there is no intention of preventing an elder in the Church of Scotland or a similar officer in the Church of England from being a director of a company. However, does it go rather further?
It would be helpful if we knew the consideration that the commission would have to apply. We have no objection to the amendment, but it might lead to some difficulty. It would be as well to know the precise position, because it might be necessary to tidy up the matter in another place.

Mr. Mellor: I ask leave of the House to speak again. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise this matter, and I am happy to make the position clear. For the reasons that I gave last night, there must be some filter mechanism to prevent either religious cults or unacceptable American religious broadcasters from taking advantage of an amelioration of the rules for religious broadcasting that are designed to benefit the mainstream of religious groups in the United Kingdom. The amendment provides that mechanism, and gives the ITC unfettered discretion to use its judgment reasonably about who to accept and who to reject.
We tinkered with a whole range of ideas about how to provide criteria for the exercise of that discretion. We concluded that it would be much more sensible to rely on the good sense of the ITC to separate the sheep from the goats. The obvious intention is that the ITC would permit mainstream religious groups to take advantage of the new arrangements but would not hesitate to act against organisations such as the Unification Church.
I say again that, with a cheek that I find baffling, the director general or whatever he calls himself of the Unification Church had the temerity to write to The Times saying that Britain needed the stimulus of the religious uplift that would be provided by Moonie television or radio. I trust that I carry the House with me when I say, "No thank you very much." These arrangements, if properly carried through—as I am sure they will be by the ITC—will ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Darling: I entirely agree with the Minister and, on balance, I see no alternative to giving the ITC the discretion that he wants to give it. Difficult cases which are not as clear cut as the Moonies against the Church of England may arise; it may be necessary for the ITC to publish the criteria, because it may be taken to court, and there is the possibility of judicial review. The Minister should think about that, because it may be necessary to have another look at the matter before the Bill completes all its stages.

Mr. Mellor: That intervention is helpful. If the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member has the answer to the conundrum about how we could sensibly fetter the discretion, I should be interested to hear it. Such matters can be further attended to in later stages of the Bill. The ITC will have to make a whole host of difficult judgments on, for example, the rules about religious advertising and religious sponsorship. There is nothing to stop the ITC

publishing guidance—and every reason to think that it should—showing clearly how it intends to exercise its discretion. I think that the ITC will do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 316, in page 139, line 22, leave out 'taken into account as a relative or' and insert
'regarded as a relative or taken into account'.

No. 317, in page 139, line 31, at end insert—
'and, where any such reference has been amended by an order under this Schedule varying the percentage in question, this sub-paragraph shall have effect in relation to it subject to the necessary modifications.'.

No. 345, in page 140, line 5, leave out from '4' to 'House' in line 6 and insert
'An order under this Schedule shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each'.

No. 346, in page 140, line 32, after 'to', insert '(e) and'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in page 140, leave out lines 40 to 44.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 347 and 348.

Mr. Hattersley: I move the amendment in part in preparation for an amendment on a similar and related subject—ownership and concentrated ownership which I hope we shall debate later. I move it in a spirit of inquiry rather than by way of condemnation in the hope that the Minister will explain the exact purpose of the words that I seek to delete from schedule 2.
Let us not mince words. As I understand part II of schedule 2, the words that I seek to delete would have the effect of removing from the prohibitions of part II of schedule 2 Mr. Rupert Murdoch and the companies that he owns in the United Kingdom. I mention Mr. Rupert Murdoch at the outset, because I do not think that it is right to be mealy-mouthed about these matters, and also because he plays a special part in these debates, not because of his character or political allegiance, but because of the size of his ownerships: the number of papers and publishing concerns that he owns, and his interest—specified and made public—in the ownership of other newspapers and magazines.
It is right to remind the House how great Mr. Murdoch's ownership is. As well as his substantial newspaper ownership and his continuous and expanding television aspirations, he owns media companies in other countries. In order to obtain the ownership of American television companies, he found it necessary to change his nationality from Australian to American. If the words that we seek to leave out remain in the schedule, while some persons will be allowed to have major television interests only if they are citizens of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or a state that is a member of the European Community, a local delivery licence or a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service will be removed from that qualification. Perhaps I misunderstand the Minister's intention. There may be some general principle —political, philosophical, technical, astral—

Mr. Mellor: Transcendental.

Mr. Hattersley: —or any word that the Minister cares to invent to justify it.
I have no wish to discuss it ad hominem if the Minister assures me that that is inappropriate. However, why are so many broadcasting organisations, institutions and corporations to be limited to ownership by citizens of the, United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Island and states in the European Community, or to those who are ordinarily resident in those places? If that is the case why has the licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service been excluded? Perhaps it is purely coincidental that Sky Television comes into that excluded category. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain that it is al a matter of principle and that the idea that it is done with a specific intention is an unworthy suspicion that I should banish from my mind. I have moved the amendment, so the Minister will tell us whether that is the case.
My strong preference is for broadcasting in the United Kingdom to be limited to companies that are owned by citizens of the United Kingdom or the European Community. That is not simply because EC regulations require it; if we are part of an integrated community, the opportunity should be offered to all member states. I have strong reservations about ownership outside the Community, whoever the owner may be. It was quaint that Mr. Murdoch was prepared to change his citizenship from Australian to American in order to obtain American television companies. I have no idea whether he would be prepared to do it again if our amendment is successful, a what cricket team he would then support, having beer Australian and then become British, via the United States.
Can the Minister convince us that it was not done with one specific company in mind, but that there is a principle behind it? If he can at least go some way towards doing that, we can wait for our major argument until we reach clause 110.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has raised some fair points I am grateful to him for doing so, and with such vigorous good humour. I shall endeavour to satisfy him. I entirely agree with his basic proposition that it is right that British broadcasting should be owned in the main by British interests, and—as an inevitable consequence of our EC membership—by European Community interests.
We have gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure, for instance in relation to the allocation of Channel 3 franchises, not only that that restriction applies but that firm regional commitments are built into the franchise allocations that will preserve not just national but regional characteristics, so that the companies concerned are likely to be rooted in the region. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that basic proposition. The relevant part of the schedule that he mentioned disapplies that general rule in two instances, not one.
4.30 pm
The first instance is local delivery operators. I recall the properly vigorous view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), expressed last night, that he would like to see more performance and less promise in the cable industry; I second that, and I believe that it is about to happen. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of interest in local delivery operators —those who will be cabling the country—from north America, France and other countries.
It is as welcome that they should be involved in this as it is that they are investing in a range of other industries.

We should be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if w prevented them from coming in, particularly when it appears that there is no great queue of British and European entrepreneurs ready to make up the difference For that reason, we disapplied the tight rules about British or European control for local delivery operators.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is it not the case that local delivery services, rather than initiating programmes, merely carry them? Is there not a difference between those who merely deliver—a commercial operation—and those who create programmes? Is this no where we should seek a national requirement?

Mr. Mellor: That is a further distinction that could be drawn, and if I had to justify that exception, I could use that argument. However, I should not go on to say that there is no case in which programme makers, producers or broadcasters should not, if other circumstances are right also be exempted.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was interested in the second example—non-direct broadcasting by satellite services. These are international in character They are not United Kingdom-allocated frequencies. The IBA does not allocate them, and they are brought under the control of the ITC to ensure the appropriate framework for the protection of the public—for example from pornography and other inappropriate programming —that fits into the European framework. They make us of a non-British satellite, although a number of the channels are linked from within the United Kingdom Therefore, they do not arrive in our homes by virtue of any arrangement to which the British Government have see their hand.
Having regard to the international character of these services, it seems inappropriate that they should be subjected to the ownership restrictions that would be thought appropriate to United Kingdom-licensed services where one is licensing for positive requirements and not merely licensing to protect against negative programmes. That is the point of distinction. I appreciate that there are some who think that we should be wrong to do this, but I make one point clear. The best known of these non-DBS services is Sky Television, but there are plenty of others.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Name them.

Mr. Mellor: I can certainly name them. The hon. Gentleman should not set such easy challenges. After all the months I have had to immerse myself in these matters, I should know. W. H. Smith has two channels. Mr. Maxwell—one would not expect him to be far behind Mr. Murdoch in this or any other game—has one. There is Canal Plus—I may have got that name wrong, but it is a German satellite service that is causing a little controversy.

Mr. Darling: It sounds French.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is a truly international figure. I withdraw my reference to that, because I am obviously misleading myself and the House. There are other services, however, which can be picked up by anyone who has an Astra satellite dish. Given the capacity of that satellite, I dare say that there will be plenty of other services. The question is whether the hundreds of thousands of persons who watch these services will watch


services that are uplinked from the United Kingdom or those that are uplinked from countries other than the United Kingdom.
I have always taken the view—not because of any slavish subservience to the interests of Mr. Murdoch or of anyone else—that it would be an own goal of fairly spectacular proportions to require Sky Television to be uplinked from somewhere on the continent, with the loss of 1,000 jobs, which I expect Opposition Members are every bit as solicitous about retaining as I am.
That is why there seems to be no compelling reason why the national ownership requirements, which I believe in and have firmly advocated should be part of the United Kingdom directly regulated system, should find a part in what is a truly international service. I refer to non-DBS satellite services that can be uplinked from anywhere in Europe. We should remember that the Astra satellite is a Luxembourg venture, not a British one, and is open to all comers. Many more channels will become available on that satellite before very much longer.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook treated this issue as a trailer, as it were, for the main feature to which we are to come. I hope that I have given him an adequate explanation, but it would not surprise me if my explanation has not satisfied him. Nevertheless, I have set out our case for doing what we have done. I dare say that we can return to the matter later.

Mr. Buchan: I shall make a brief intervention in the debate because I accepted the offer which was made last night. I shall speak at greater length when we consider Sky.
The Minister must not believe that he has taken anyone in with his spurious excuse. We know that there is only one effective commercial satellite programme apart from Sky, and that is BSB, which is just getting off the ground, as it were. Those are the only two that matter at present. There is only one non-domestic satellite, and that is Sky. That is why some of us have regarded this measure as a de facto hybrid Bill rather than a de jure one. It seems that it has been designed to exclude Mr. Murdoch, and in the process of exclusion a complete argument has been disregarded in relation to broadcasting within Britain. Wherever it is beamed from, Sky is directed towards Britain. It does not come within the nationality requirements, which the Minister argued were useful for broadcasting within Britain, within which we are creating programmes.
Even more important is the excuse of the other disqualification, which is cross-media ownership. As it happens, Mr. Murdoch owns more than 35 per cent. of the daily and Sunday newspaper circulations. It is a power that no one has had before. Beaverbrook, for example, did not have a satellite station. It is the cross-media relationship that is the danger.
I tried to solve the problem by saying that there should be foreign station status. The Government wish to exclude because jobs are involved, but the Minister has said that we can ignore nationality and level of ownership. If he says that we cannot touch, as it were, a satellite station that is beamed from abroad, let it be treated as a foreign station. Everything else follows from that, and in that way we could proscribe such stations. We must find ways of bringing all stations within the same competitive sphere.
However beneficial the Government's proposals would be to the Tory party, we cannot allow the Government to

get away with them. The Minister responded with a Tory answer and I am sure that even he did not believe in it. We shall be dealing with these issues at greater length when we reach the heart of the matter with the Sky amendments.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not detain the House for more than a few seconds. I accept the Minister's point. Indeed, I accept without qualification his assurance that the words to which I took temporary exception were not intended to benefit Mr. Rupert Murdoch. It so happens that he is the principal beneficiary at the moment, but I accept that they were not intended for that purpose. I thank the Minister for being kind about the spirit in which I moved the amendment. However, I do not find wholly convincing his explanation of why the satellite stations, organisations and operations should be excluded. It is the nature of satellites that they are international. The place from which they are launched is hardly the appropriate criterion on which to judge how their broadcasts should be regulated.

Mr. Mellor: My point was about the place from which the satellite services are uplinked. There are 650 jobs in west London with more to come. As the Labour party has a strong regional base in Scotland, perhaps of more relevance to it are the 250 jobs in Livingston. What would be the point of Parliament passing ownership restrictions that had the effect of transferring those jobs to the continent?

Mr. Hattersley: I did not use the word "uplinked", but I understand the Minister's point. If he is saying that things must be done in this way to protect jobs it is a partial argument that I accept. However, he also attempted to make some point of principle that it would be wrong to control these matters because of the nature of satellites. He does not believe that it would be wrong to control the content—indeed, that is his intention. There is some inconsistency in his distinction between offering ownership, some degree of control over ownership or refusing a degree of control over ownership, but nevertheless believing that, despite the international character, there can be some degree of control over the broadcasts.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced political figure who was in office for a number of years. Political arguments are inevitably composed of a combination of principle and practicality. The place where the satellites are uplinked within the international satellite system is very important because that is where the jobs will be. The 250 jobs in Livingston are in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in the shadow Cabinet. Does his colleague accept a policy that would deprive his constituency of 250 jobs?

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister is making it difficult for me to withdraw the amendment. I shall do that when he gives me the chance. If he allows me to speak the operative words, I shall seek permission to withdraw the amendment. I shall first make two points about his latest intervention. He well knows that every member of the shadow Cabinet agrees with every word that I say, as we all agree with every word that each of us says.
The more important point is that there is no reason to assume that if there were regulations relating to control jobs would necessarily disappear. They might go into other ownerships, but the idea that they exist only because some


supernatural force—satellite and Mr. Rupert Murdoch —wills them to exist is a misunderstanding of the whole industry.
That is not the main issue in the concentration of ownership. I intend to pursue the principle of the issue when we debate amendment No. 110. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 347, in page 140, line 41, leave out 'or'.

No. 348, in page 140, line 42, at end insert—
'(c) a licence to provide a licensable programme service, or
(d) a licence to provide a licensable sound programme service,'.

No. 349, in page 141, line 2, after '2', insert
'—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2),'.

No. 350, in page 141, line 11, leave out 'and'.

No. 351, in page 141, line 13, at end insert
'and
(g) a body which is controlled by an individual falling within paragraph (f) or by two or more such individuals taken together.'.

No. 352, in page 141, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) If the Commission are satisfied that it is appropriate for a person to hold—
(a) a licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service, or
(b) a licence to provide a licensable programme service, being a person who, apart from this sub-paragraph, would be a disqualified person in relation to any such licence by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), they shall make a determination to that effect; and so long as any such determination remains in force in relation to that person, sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply to him in relation to any such licence.'.

No. 353, in page 141, line 15, leave out
'a licence granted by the Authority'
and insert
'any licence granted by the Authority other than a licence to provide a restricted service'.

No. 318, in page 141, line 45, leave out 'or 2'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 609, in page 142, line 40, at end insert—
'( ) community radio service'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments:
No. 580, in clause 78, page 60, line 38, at end insert—
'( ) for a particular area or locality in the United Kingdom for a service that is for community not commercial benefit (a "community service")'.

No. 582, in clause 79, page 61, line 20, after 'services', insert
'both profit and non-profit seeking'.

No. 583, in clause 79, page 61, line 26, at end insert—
'( ) to facilitate the provision of local and community licensed services which (taken as a whole) in any area offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests; and'.

No. 595, in clause 97, page 76, line 11, at end insert—
'(iii) involve persons or bodies both in programming and in the production of programmes and that would benefit the relevant communities; and'.

No. 596, in clause 98, page 76, line 49, at end insert—
'( ) the extent to which any such proposed services would involve persons and bodies living in the area or locality for which the service would be provided and to what extent programmes and other services would be provided for the relevant communities.'.

Mr. Maclennan: Our debates in Committee were productive of great change, especially in respect of television. I regret that we did not make greater progress towards reforming the provision of radio, and in particular that we did not secure the position of community radio. This batch of amendments is an attempt to deal with that issue.
4.45 pm
The amendments start from the premise that community radio and local radio are not, as the Bill would have it, the same. They are different in structure, in finance, in their purposes and objectives, and in what they broadcast, who broadcasts and who listens. Both local and community radio are worth while and we should support both. They need not be rivals and they need not dip into the same pot for advertising revenue. They can compliment each other. However, unless the Bill provides for their separate treatment, the restrictions to regulate commercial stations will merely stifle the growth of community radio, and those that are successful will quickly fall prey to takeovers by commercial companies which regard community radio's audience, if not its service, as a threat.
We can study the experience of other countries where community radio has been protected in the manner that I propose—such as Australia, where it is thriving—but where there has been an unregulated market, as in Italy and France, community radio has been swallowed up. The French recognised the problem and after eight years of deregulation the responsible regulatory authority has designated community radio as a separate category.
Even since the publication of the Bill, there has been a better understanding of the difficulties of expanding local services. Manchester's Sunset radio has been much in the news with the sacking and then the reinstatement of its founding managing director, Mr. Mike Shaft. In that case, the trouble seemed to have been a classic example of some board members wanting a higher financial return, which required a broadening of the music appeal and cuts in certain other programmes, including the provision of news —thereby making the news team redundant.
Services such as Sunset—which is aimed at an Afro-Caribbean audience—and WNK and London Greek Radio in north London won their licences because of the services that they were offering. The market is quite limited and not necessarily attractive to advertisers. For Afro-Caribbean services, there are not sufficient numbers of business men able to subsidise those services. There is a difficulty with definition because such stations are often founded or taken over by people interested in radio as a business venture. For incremental services, the proper answer would be a radio fund of some sort—we discussed that in Committee—which could be used to enable stations to carve out an audience over a period of time and to aim their rates at small, local businesses.
For such stations, reliance on national advertising would almost certainly lead to bankruptcy. They would fail to attract such advertising. That is why I do not consider that backing community radio would be damaging to local radio. Alternatively, forcing such stations to seek wider audiences will result in their specialist task being whittled away. Building a specialist audience takes time and creditors do not wait. Copyright fees and the interest from the considerable facilities and


equipment that the Independent Broadcasting Authority requires stations to install is a burden that many small radio stations find hard to bear.
The market that these stations aim for and the staff who are prepared to work long hours, sometimes without reward, might best be served if the stations were set up as community stations with the limited aspirations and equipment that that requires and the protection that it would bring. Mixing outside commercial ventures and stations providing a service for a particular community, and then treating them in the same way, as the Bill does, more often than not will place intolerable burdens on the less profitable services and lead to their demise.
An interesting example of such a service, which I commend for special treatment, is the proposed Radio Heartland in Perthshire. The service is proposed because of poor reception there due to the terrain and because the cost of improving services is high and beyond the scope of commercial financing. The population is a modest 12,500 people. The radio station will be locally owned and will draw programmes from local sources to reflect the diversity of the population, it will be legally constituted as a non-profit maximising body and will involve the community through training and the use of their facilities.
In Radio Heartland's own words:
In many ways it will be like campus or hospital radio (Like them, it will be low budget—no hi cost hi-tech!) made by and for a special group, the people of Highland Perthshire.
The service that they intend to provide and are raising funds for could be of benefit throughout rural areas in Scotland, parts of Wales, the south-west or Northumberland and Cumbria—sparsely populated areas to which it is difficult to bring local radio. Such areas are often out of contact with the cultural possibilities offered by local broadcasting.
The amendments which have been selected do not cover finance. That is obviously crucial and we shall have to return to it if the Government accept the principle of recognising the difference between local and community radio.
The provisions that I am suggesting are in keeping with a resolution of the European Parliament passed in April 1989 which, among other things, recommended measures to safeguard and develop local broadcasting and private radio stations, which should be safeguarded at community level and not left to the mercy of market forces. Those objectives of the European Parliament seem to me to be sensible.
The amendments are more necessary than I believed them to be when we discussed the subject in Committee due to the disappointing response by the shadow Radio Authority to the Minister's request, on behalf of the Committee, for a note about how it envisaged licences would be granted following the debate in Committee on community radio.
That revealed that the incipient authority has a restricted understanding of the subject. While it talked about filling in the white areas and meeting the needs of ethnic minorities, it did not mention community radio and made no distinction between commercial and non-commercial stations. It seemed to be almost beyond its

comprehension that there could be broadcasting by non-commercial stations. That response to the Minister's request cannot inspire confidence for the future.
I shall describe the amendments briefly as I do not wish to take up too much time. The issue of principle is the most important matter and the one that I want to establish. Amendment No. 609 would ensure that under the ownership restrictions of schedule 2 community radio was designated separately.
Amendment No. 580 provides that community radio should be designated separately when the authority exercises its regulatory function. Amendment No. 582 would ensure that the authority had a general duty to do all that it could to secure a range of non-profit-making and profit-making services. Amendment No. 583 would ensure that it was a function of the authority that it facilitated a wide range of local community services in an area. Under the Bill the authority could consider the country as a whole when planning services. Amendment No. 584 provides for the existence of a community licence alongside other licences.
Amendments Nos. 585 and 586 are crucial because they will allow the provisions of part III to part V of schedule 2 on ownership to be waived if the authority thought it necessary to ensure the provision of a community service. It is right that there should be protection from local authorities or from political abuse of whatever persuasion. The ownership rules for commercial stations that the Government have incorporated in the Bill should reflect that. Those provisions are appropriate for local radio but they are not appropriate for non-profit-making community radio. In the case of small community stations in an inner city or rural area, the participation of a local councillor or the active involvement of a local council, whether by providing cheap finance or the use of a council building, could make the most colossal difference to a station's existence.
There should not be hard and fast rules. The authority should have wide discretion to ensure that the needs of the area come first. If a station appears to have been operating in a manner which leads to abuse, the relevant rules should be adjusted.
Amendment No. 594 requires authorities to designate between local community services when publishing a notice of grant or licence. Amendment Nos. 597 and 598 apply to local commercial stations as much as to community stations. The companies involved should be required to say how the stations will be part of the community and use the local community and so provide local employment. We have discussed the question of employment time and again in Committee. Local and regional broadcasting can give an important injection of employment. Local and community stations can help in such a way.
If we ensure community-based radio which provided a service for a specific community, it would allow a major increase in stations which are complementary rather than rivals to existing commercial stations. There is no evidence that the market will sustain a free-for-all expansion. Falling advertising revenue suggests otherwise.
Some people who speak for local radio have expressed the fear that assisted commercial radio could constitute a threat. For the reasons that I have already given, they will not be dipping into the same pot. If it were necessary to


ensure that they did not dip into the same pot, I should be happy to contemplate further amendments along those lines if the Minister was so disposed.
The Government want growth in community radio, but the Bill—as the Minister will acknowledge—does not make specific provision for such stations. The Minister was not persuaded earlier that it should do so. I hope that on mature reflection he is now persuaded of the virtue of the separate designation procedure that I have suggested, and that he will give the Bill a fillip by agreeing, at least in principle, to the points I have made.

Mr. Roger Gale: There is always a danger at times like these that we will re-run debates which have been rehearsed in Committee. However, in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I feel that I should be brief.
With many other hon. Members, I have been committed to the cause of local and community radio since it was first introduced in this country in 1963. I have watched its development with great interest at local level and now I am interested in the development of community radio. We are on the threshold of tremendously exciting possibilities for local communities.
Community radio does not exist in this country at the moment, and nor does local radio. Anyone who tries to suggest that it does is misreading the true nature of local and community radio. We have good regional radio stations run by independent companies and by the BBC, but they are not truly local and they are certainly not community stations as I or the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland understand the meaning of the word.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I part company with him only in my firm belief that community radio can and should be commercially viable. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister is in danger of allowing a Bill to go through which in its present form might inhibit rather than assist the development of community radio by the restrictions on ownership. We have become almost paranoid about cross-media ownership and we need to examine carefully the way in which we treat local and particularly community radio stations.
5 pm
There is already a network of hospital radio stations across the country, many of which are ideally poised to become genuine community stations. In effect, they are already providing part of that service, but they need to augment their power, staffing, reporting capability and air time to enable them to serve a wider community than the hospitals to which they are "narrowcasting" rather than broadcasting. That can be achieved, but I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider carefully between now and when the Bill reaches another place an argument that I have raised before. It is a grave mistake to bar local newspapers from ownership of or major share participation in community radio stations. There are many good local newspapers throughout the country with good reporting teams providing excellent local coverage. It would be quite wrong to seek to add to that layer of local reporting expertise—which often feeds regional and national radio and television stations—another layer of local journalism.
Community radio stations simply would not be able to afford the journalistic expertise that would be necessary to provide a good community news service. Local newspapers have that expertise and should be allowed to harness it to good effect. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say that there is nothing to stop a local newspaper providing the news service for a community radio station in addition to having a 20 per cent. shareholding in that station. But that would defeat the object of the exercise. If we are so concerned about cross-media ownership, clearly we should not permit that. If we apply the free market—as I believe that we should —and freedom for community and local stations to develop in harmony with and compatible with local newspapers, surely local newspapers and other local businesses must be allowed to take a stake in the community radio stations and to harness and augment their reporting expertise to provide a better service for the community radio station and for the local newspaper.
It would also be a mistake to insist on the establishment of a separate advertising sales force. Local newspapers usually have that. We are in danger of missing an opportunity. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but they need further consideration, which I hope that they will receive from my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I left the Chamber about half an hour ago, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that I would return at the beginning of the debate on his amendments, assuming that at the beginning of each new set of amendments a call would be put out by one of the attendants from the back of the Chamber into the Lobby. I was on the telephone in the Lobby. Can you confirm whether that is the case and, if so, will you ask that it be carried out on a regular basis?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure what the practice is, but I will certainly inquire into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), to which I am a signatory. I wish to make a couple of substantive points in support of the general argument for community radio. Obviously I did not follow or participate in the debates in Committee in the same detail as my hon. Friend did. I am aware that the Minister has been sympathetic to the points that my hon. Friend raised, but the Bill has not yet been amended to make concessions for the existence of community radio in the way in which we and many people outside the House would wish.
The most important point, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), is whether it is always necessary for community radio to be commercially self-sustaining. Community radio cannot always be commercially viable and it is wrong to expect that. One of the problems of media ownership is that access is easily available to those who can accumulate the capital to purchase it. Obviously they have to enter competitive tendering and put together a good package. So long as they can do that, however, if they cannot buy one station they will buy another.
As independent radio has grown throughout the country, we have seen the gradual acquisition of shares in the opportunity to broadcast by a small minority. The other common example of access to the dissemination of information is the newspaper network. Although there may be a community of interest between local newspapers, which do a good job serving a local community, and local radio stations, we cannot expect that to be the norm. It is wrong to expect that to be the norm as it concentrates the dissemination of news locally in single hands. We want to break down that concentration and to open up access across the range of people and talent in the community and not limit it to those who already have a foot in the door or a share of the market in broadcasting or the printed word.
It is important that we accept and write into the Bill the principle that there should be provision for community radio and that we do not presume that it will always be independently and commercially viable. Experiments with commercial and community radio in London have led to the development of easy music stations as the commercial arm of local radio. There have been very small community radio stations—for example, the Greek radio stations and other ethnic community radio stations. One station goes by the wonderful name of "Wicked, Neutral and Kicking". Perhaps not all Members of Parliament have listened to that station, but it is none the worse for that.
Those community radio stations broadcast for a small community. Their catchment areas tend to be small and they tend to attract a small number of listeners, so the potential financial resources available are limited. Ethnic community and local community stations will find it increasingly difficult to compete. That would be to the great disadvantage of opening up the airwaves.
If we are seeking to allow ordinary people without great capital backing to enjoy the opportunity of broadcasting —perhaps only for a short period—we must want to offer that opportunity to ethnic minority communities, particularly in urban areas. There is a whole diversity of ethnic minority communities in London. The Vietnamese community, for instance, is a refugee community but it is significant as it is the largest Vietnamese community in Britain. It has no financial resources and is unlikely ever to command any significant backing. Such communities are small but important. Their members are often isolated and do not benefit from the normal communications media because most people around them do not speak their language. They rely even more than the other people whom we always pray in aid when we stress the importance of radio—the elderly, the infirm and hospital patients—on local and community media.
I hope that the Minister understands that we cannot always expect proper community radio to be run by the big boys and girls and to secure big backing. It will need some financial support from the community. Secondly, community radio must be seen to be supported by the Government and the House and to be encouraged by the funding and other practical arrangements that the Bill provides.
I hope that the Minister will be much more positive than I understand that he has been so far and that his support will be converted into practical commitment. If

that happens, my hon. Friends and I will be well pleased. Many communities are awaiting the outcome of the debate with great interest.

Mr. Mellor: It was not my wish that debate on the Bill should focus more on television than on radio. Anticipating that that would be the likely trend, on Second Reading I deliberately concentrated on the first four paragraphs of a Home Office press notice on the expansion of radio before dealing with television.
I believe in radio as a medium of communication. The Bill's effect on it and on its development will be more profound than its effect on the development of television. There will be, I hope and believe, not only three new national independent radio stations but several hundred local and community radio stations. In 10 years' time, the most obvious and noticeable effect of the Broadcasting Act will be on radio. That is not to say that it will not have a considerable effect on television, but it will be most noticeable on radio.
I am not averse to considering changing the Bill's provisions on radio, as I was not averse to changing its provisions on television. The most substantial change in the Bill is that the internal diversity test postulated for national independent radio has become an external diversity test, with the power for the Radio Authority to state what station it wants, so that not only is each of the three stations different from the others but one is speech-based and one is not pop music; but the unavoidable consequence is that the other presumably will be a pop music station. There could have been three pop stations, but the fact that there is only one is a move in the right direction.
I take issue with a theme that ran through the speeches made by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that community radio is not catered for in the Bill. I am a great believer in community radio. In an earlier incarnation, I was responsible for the production of the radio Green Paper. In fairness, most of the work was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who was a firm believer in community radio.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaks with much enthusiasm on these matters, but he may not have had the chance to follow them as closely as those who served on the Committee. He was under the misapprehension that finance is of the essence in the ownership of radio stations. Some financial wherewithal will be necessary, but it will be limited to the amount of equipment necessary to get the station going.
To help in that process, we have removed some of the belt-and-braces technical requirements that were a feature of the old IBA system. It will be perfectly possible to run a creditable radio station without meeting some of the high Rolls-Royce specifications that previously applied. We did that to enable local radio stations to continue. Was it Radio Woody that we came to know and love? It makes me feel quite nostalgic.

Mr. Gale: And Radio Cabin.

Mr. Mellor: And Radio Cabin. My God, how could I Forget Radio Cabin?
There is no requirement to put money up front for local radio. The Government made that deliberate omission to ensure that the financial big battalions are not preferred. If there is a contest between an extremely well resourced


popular music station that wants to broadcast in one of our towns or cities and a community station that wants to produce programmes devoted to the community, there is an assumption, which we all too readily make, that the well moneyed station will win, but that is not how the Bill will work.
The criterion that is established is clear: when competing applications are to be considered, it is the extent to which the station would add to listener choice and reflect local audience demands. The test of extending listener choice is likely to be heavily biased in favour of community stations, because they are absent from the airwaves in most parts of the country. Most parts of the country have good regional radio, but they do not have genuine community radio. It therefore follows that a good community radio application is almost bound to be successful if the criterion is local choice, as it is under the Bill.
5.15 pm
The extension of choice is the right criterion. We do not want radio services offering more of the same, to use the tired old American analogy—it is not true, but as so many people say it I might as well use it—where one pushes 30 buttons and gets the same thing. To set up a radio station requires not money or technical sophistication but some proof that the people concerned can run it. I do not think that that will be difficult to establish.
Much was said in praise of ethnic stations, for which there is a case in some parts of the country. We already have them under the incremental arrangements, which shows that the system is not biased against the emergence of such stations. A false assumption has flowed through the debate—I make no criticism of it because I am saying this not in a clinical sense but merely as an observation —that it is easy to define a commercial as opposed to a community station. No commercial station will be a big money earner unless it is one of the big regional stations. Equally, no community station can afford to be oblivious to commercial realities.
It would be an interesting test to ask those who think that it is an easy distinction whether the 20 incremental stations announced by the IBA should be categorised as commercial or community stations. Having sought to do that, I can assure the House that it is not a self-evident distinction. Even the ethnic station in west London that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned plays a sufficiently high proportion of popular music for it to be criticised for not being within its remit. That is not a matter on which I would purport to comment, but I raise it simply as an issue.
The Government believe in community radio. We have provided an opportunity for the biggest expansion of radio that there has ever been. The test to be applied—broadening listener choice—is biased in favour of community stations.
I will reflect on all the points that have been made, and, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I certainly do not rule out further thinking on the amendments. The Bill will rightly be subject to the rigorous scrutiny of the other place, so there is still potential for revising it.
I hope that I have established that the mere fact that we do not purport—it is unnecessary to do so—to have a different defined category of community radio on the face of the Bill does not mean we do not profoundly believe in

it. It is of the essence of the Bill that it makes provision for community radio. That is the basis on which I commend the Government's proposals to the House, and on which I hope I have persuaded the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that he need not press his amendment to a Division.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I agree with the Minister that the changes in radio will be the most significant changes in the Bill, and not least the changes that could happen in local communities if the Bill leads to a first generation of community radio. However, I still believe that the Minister has got it wrong. He needs to consult more fully on the issue.
I accept the Minister's sincerity when he says, as he said in Committee, that he is a great believer in community radio. However, his citing of the Green Paper was not convincing evidence in support of his view. He knows very well that the Green Paper was heavily criticised, not least by the enthusiasts who have done much thinking and work on community radio. The Green Paper did not understand that community radio is not just a small-scale version of regional or local radio: it is a distinct type of animal.
In comparison to what the Minister said in Committee, this afternoon he seemed to give glimpses of that realisation. This afternoon he began to use words like "non-commercial" and "widening choice". I believe that he genuinely cares and has a glimpse of community radio, but he is not prepared to accept the logic of his position. He cannot accept that there must be a specific remit and a distinct definition of community radio on the face of the Bill to make it different from local or regional radio. Unless there is a different remit and a different understanding of its non-commercial position, the future of community radio is very uncertain.
The experts and officials in the new Radio Authority —including Mr. Peter Baldwin and his colleagues—understand that point. Within the terms of their brief, they have done well with the allocation of the first 20 incremental radio licences. At least half of those have gone to stations that have some pretension to being community stations. Whether the fragile financial base of some of those stations will survive beyond the first year is extremely uncertain. The Minister and other hon. Members will join me in wishing them well, but they face difficulties.
Without a distinct remit and financial support in training, start-up costs and quality programming to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred in connection with his radio fund, the future for genuine community radio which widens the range of voices that can be heard and the range of local agenda and debates is very uncertain. Some stations may survive, but they will do so on the back of a great deal of music input to attract advertising.
The Minister is not creating a separate category for community radio in the Bill. To leave those stations to the vagaries of the commercial market will mean that the future of the stations will be uncertain. It will be difficult enough for the new generation of local radio stations. It will be even more difficult for community stations that have a different community brief arising from those communities and giving voices to those communities. That will not be commercially viable.
France and Italy have discovered that, if community stations are left to the free market, they wither and die or


they are taken over if they are profitable. Only Australia has managed to sustain a community station network, because community stations there have a separate understanding; they have financial support from the Government and the voluntary sector and a wide range of non-commercial organisations such as the trade unions, universities and ethnic groupings.
Without that kind of understanding of the distinct problems facing genuine community radio stations, the Government's good wishes and the Minister's sincere belief in community radio will be stillborn. That would be sad, because I do not believe that that is what the Government or the Minister intend.
In the later stages of the Bill, I urge the Minister to consult more fully with the Community Radio Association and other bodies in this country so that he may understand their problems and their particular concerns. I urge him also to consider the Australian model. I know that his officials have considered that model. If the Minister considers it fairly, he will see that there are distinct problems and opportunities in community radio that are different from low-scale, local commercial radio. Unless the Minister addresses that, his good wishes will not come to fruition. That would be sad.

Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that, in putting his confidence in the provisions in the Bill that refer to the extension of listener choice in connection with local radio and the duties of the regulatory authority, the Minister is expressing his genuine hope that community radio will be one of the benefits of the Bill. However, perhaps inadvertently, he revealed the need for my amendment in the way in which he replied to the debate and in particular when he drew attention to the difficulty of defining existing stations as either community stations or local stations.
That difficulty stems from the fact that it is proving extremely tough for genuine community stations to survive as community stations. They have necessarily become somewhat ambivalent about their role because of the financial straits in which they find themselves. The Minister referred to the example of a station in west London which began life as an ethnic community station. As he rightly said, that station has been considerably criticised for apparently going beyond its remit. It has defended its actions by asking why it should not provide pop radio to its target audience. However, it is generally recognised that commercial need has driven that station towards the provision of local rather than genuine community radio. By his example, the Minister has shown the need for a separate definition and status of community radio. We need that definition, and that need is supported strongly by many people.
I had hoped that the Minister would reveal a greater understanding of the distinctiveness of community radio. I had hoped that he would have identified the difference and the unsuitability of seeing it as an offshoot of local radio. We all pray that he will see that, but as he has not, I feel that it is right to express our commitment to the provision of community radio by inviting the House to divide on my amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 269.

Division No. 196]
[5.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Allen, Graham
Heffer, Eric S.


Alton, David
Hinchliffe, David


Anderson, Donald
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Armstrong, Hilary
Home Robertson, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hood, Jimmy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Ashton, Joe
Hoyle, Doug


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Barron, Kevin
Illsley, Eric


Beckett, Margaret
Ingram, Adam


Beggs, Roy
Janner, Greville


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bermingham, Gerald
Kilfedder, James


Blair, Tony
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Blunkett, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Boyes, Roland
Leighton, Ron


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Lewis, Terry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livingstone, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Buckley, George J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAllion, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McCrea, Rev William


Canavan, Dennis
McFall, John


Cartwright, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKelvey, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cryer, Bob
Mallon, Seamus


Cummings, John
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliot


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn






Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Richardson, Jo
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N.


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Worthington, Tony


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wray, Jimmy


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Simon Hughes.


Straw, Jack





NOES


Adley, Robert
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Cran, James


Amess, David
Critchley, Julian


Amos, Alan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Green way, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Chris
Gregory, Conal


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Hague, William


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Colvin, Michael
Hayward, Robert





Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rost, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridgo)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miller, Sir Hal
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Mudd, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark






Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and



 Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 319, in page 143, line 34, after 'participant', insert—
'(a)'.

No. 320, in page 143, line 35, at end insert
', or
(b) in two or more such bodies corporate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 321, in page 144, line 16, after '(2)', inset 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take also the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 322 to 332.

No. 110, in page 146, line 35, at end insert 'or
(c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service.'.

No. 8, in page 146, line 35, at end insert—
'(c) a domestic satellite service or a non-domestic satellite service which in either case is a designated service.
(1A) A service shall be a designated service for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) and paragraph 3(1)(c) if the Secretary of State so directs by order and the Secretary of State shall so direct if it appears to him that the service is intended primarily for reception in the United Kingdom and is broadcast for reception in three million or more dwelling-houses in the United Kingdom.
(1B) Any order made under sub-paragraph (1A) shall be so framed as to provide that the service shall not be a designated service until the expiry of twelve months after the making of the order.'.

Government amendments Nos. 333 to 335.

No. 9, in page 147, line 8, leave out 'or (b)' and insert '(b) or (c)',

Government amendment No. 336.

No. 10, in page 147, line 17, leave out '1(2)(b) or (c) or'.

No. 111, in page 147, line 26, at end insert
'or
(c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service.'.

No. 11, in page 147, line 26, at end insert—
'(c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service which in either case is a designated service,'.

No. 36, in page 147, line 28, at end add
'or may hold more than a twenty per cent. interest in another Channel 3 licensee'.

Government amendments Nos. 337 to 339.

No. 13, in page 148, line 6, leave out '1(2)(b) or (c) or'.

No. 12, in page 148, line 6, after 'schedule', insert
'or within sub-paragraph (1)(c)'.'

Government amendments Nos. 340 to 342.

Mr. Mellor: The amendments reflect a further trawl through schedule 2 and deal either with commitments entered into in Committee or with further thoughts that we have had about the framing of schedule 2—a highly technical one—to make it clearer what are the arrangements in it.
The principal controversy in the debate will, I suspect, centre around not the Government amendments, but the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) and others. I believe that it would be best if I listened to what he and others had to say and perhaps had the opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Watts: My hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments Nos. 8 to 13 to try to address a loophole in the Bill's safeguards against excessive cross-media control. I followed the progress of the Bill through Committee, although I was not a member of it, and I decided to raise this problem on Report because I believe that not all the issues and options available to the Government have been fully considered.
The debate should not be dominated by an argument centring on Sky Television and News International newspapers, as I believe that the public interest arguments go a long way beyond that. I have no wish to be involved in any vendetta against a particular newspaper group and one which has done a great service to the newspaper industry by its introduction of modern technology. The amendments could apply equally, now or in the future, to other non-domestic satellite broadcasters.
Should my hon. and learned Friend see fit to accept the amendments, they will provide consistent safeguards against the cross-control of the media that covers all broadcasting outlets directed at a United Kingdom audience. They will also ensure that the current state of the new and developing market of satellite broadcasting is allowed to flourish and, where successful, to provide just rewards for those who have made the investment in that high-risk area.
Satellite television services broadcasting to the United Kingdom are unchecked by the safeguards that apply to terrestrial broadcasters or to the national direct broadcasting by satellite services through their contract with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. As the Bill stands, there are no safeguards against a foreign satellite user broadcasting to the United Kingdom population while owning a powerful and significant proportion of the national daily press and having a 20 per cent. stake in the Channel 3 franchise. I believe that that loophole undermines the basis of the present controls and the integrity of the long-established separation between newspapers and television.
Keeping the control of broadcasting and the press separate has been the cardinal principle of British media policy and was firmly established to be in the public interest after the Pilkington committee report of 1962. On the question of public interest, the committee noted:
The threat is thought to reside in the fact that, because two of the media of mass communication are owned in some measure by the same people, there is an excessive concentration of power to influence and persuade public opinion, and that if those same people are too few or have broadly the same political affiliations there will be an increasing one-sided presentation of affairs of public concern. There might, too, be a failure to present some of these affairs sufficiently or at all.
The report concluded:
The concern expressed was at the threat to democracy.
The Television Act 1963, following that report, established the current framework for ownership restrictions. That framework has been endorsed by successive Governments of both political parties in the Television Act 1964, the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 and the Broadcasting Act 1981. The framework was extended to include the then new United Kingdom direct broadcasting by satellite franchise in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.
In 1977, the Royal Commission on the press stated:


We believe that it is right to maintain policies to ensure that the newspaper companies do not control broadcasting companies.
The Royal Commission recommended:
The existing policy of ensuring that no broadcasting company is effectively controlled by a newspaper company should be maintained and strengthened to exclude effective control by newspaper companies in combination.
In June 1988, the third report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, entitled "The Future of Broadcasting", contained the following conclusions:
It is an important democratic safeguard that no one should be able to control more than one major means of public information. We have no wish to stifle international investment but we can see the danger of over-concentration of ownership, both nationally and internationally … We consider that the reasons for restrictions on ownership remain valid and recommend that the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981, appropriately updated, should be included in the forthcoming legislation.
In the section on ownership, the Government's 1988 White Paper on broadcasting said:
clear rules will also be needed which impose limits on concentration of ownership and on excessive cross-media ownership, in order to keep the market open for newcomers and to prevent any tendency towards editorial uniformity or domination by a few groups.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary, said on 18 January 1989:
We will propose extensive and effective rules to prevent concentration of broadcasting ownership and unhealthy cross media ownership. It is crucially important that we should have such rules. Real choice could be undermined if British broadcasting were allowed to be dominated by a handful of tycoons or international conglomerates.
In a paper that it recently circulated to hon. Members, the IBA stated:
The IBA believes that the case for restrictions on newspaper interests in non-DBS satellite operations is as strong in principle as it is on BDS services, since these services will be in direct competition with each other, although we see the difficulty of applying ownership controls retrospectively. We therefore support the thrust of Amendment No. 8 which proposes that the Secretary of State should be required to apply the 20 per cent. limitation on newspaper ownership of a non-DBS satellite service once the service achieves significant market share.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has rightly disavowed vindictiveness against any particular newspaper or group. Was the amendment, as worded, suggested or in any way influenced by BSB?

Mr. Watts: I have made it clear in speaking to a number of newspaper correspondents that the structure of the amendment standing in my name was suggested to me by BSB. As I shall continue to argue, I believe that the approach that I have adopted, and that I am suggesting to the House, is a valid and sensible solution to the problem facing the House and the Government.

Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most people who are concerned with the issue are quite prepared to look at evidence put forward by any side, including BSB, if it helps to get more liberty on television, despite the points made a moment ago?

Mr. Watts: Yes, of course, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members would approach the issue with fairly open minds. I have discussed my proposals with representatives from Sky Television, as I felt that it was proper that I should listen to the arguments they put to me directly, not merely by using their influence through certain hon. Members.
In a paper on competition, diversity and cross-media ownership, News International plc said:
excessive concentration of media ownership is undesirable for economic and political reasons.
Diversity in the provision of information must be ensured to avoid the concentration of too much power in too few hands. Limited cross-media investment has existed for many years, and I am not suggesting that a limited stake by a newspaper in a television company will necessarily lead to mischief. Limited cross-investment does not threaten the public interest—it is cross-control that is the cause for concern.
The House is well aware of the problems that can arise if cross-media control is tolerated. Many of my hon. Friends will recall that, in 1989, early-day motion 434 called for ownership safeguards to apply to those broadcasting from outside the United Kingdom. That early-day motion attracted 87 signatures, of which 67 were from my hon. Friends. More recently, between 3 and 30 November last year, 141 hon. Members were contacted by Gallup—I know what great faith all of us have in opinion polls—and of those Members, 80 were Conservative, 52 were Labour and nine were from other parties. Of the Members polled, 83 per cent.—and more than 70 per cent. of Conservative Members polled—believed that the maintenance of the separation between the control of newspaper and television services was an important principle.
Significant concentrations of interest in national newspapers and national broadcasting services carries a risk of distortion and the promotion of self interest. In May 1989, the Broadcasting Research Unit carried out a case study on cross-media ownership and its impact on public opinion. The survey was supported by the IBA and noted in its report on page 2:
Analysis of a recent major study on broadcasting, however, does suggest that a systematic pursuit of particular editorial themes may have a marked and measurable effect on public opinion which goes beyond the acceptable boundaries of promoting the commercial interests of proprietors
As hon. Members will be aware, the possible promotion of self-interest through biased editorial coverage or subsidised advertising and selective coverage has become a matter of concern, and the Government have instigated the Sadler inquiry to report on those concerns. However, that inquiry will not be completed until after this Bill has become law, and its terms of reference specifically exclude the ownership issues covered by the Bill.
Currently, the Bill rightly provides that a national newspaper proprietor may not have more than a 20 per cent. stake in a company that provides a Channel 3 or Channel 5 service, and vice versa. However, those safeguards in the Bill do not automatically apply to services provided by satellite. I understand that Ministers have made clear their intention that they should, quite rightly, apply to a domestic service provider.
The Bill provides the Home Secretary with powers to prescribe restrictions on users of foreign satellites by order. I welcome the principle that underlies the Government's proposals, but I also recognise that, by refusing to extend the ownership safeguards in the Bill to include foreign satellite users, which may be exclusively directed at this country, the provision's integrity is seriously undermined.

Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend tell the House, first, whether he supports the principles of the Council of Europe transfrontier broadcasting convention, of which


the Government are a signatory and behind which the former Home Office Minister, now the Patronage Secretary, was the driving force? If he does support it, will he say how his proposals will be compatible with the convention when the jobs that he seeks to destroy in this country are moved to, for example, Luxembourg?

Mr. Watts: I am not seeking to destroy any jobs in this country. I am anxious to ensure that the principles on cross-media control, which the Government clearly consider are still important because they are to be applied to terrestrial broadcasters and the domestic satellite service provider—

Mr. Gale: That would be outside the terms of the convention.

Mr. Watts: I am not sure that my hon Friend is always so enthusiastic in his support for European initiatives. If the effect of the arrangement to which he refers is that we have to give up the important principle of controlling cross-media ownership, I am against that European initiative.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I hardly need remind my hon. Friend that, like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I have the privilege and pleasure of working for Sky Television, in the same way that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has the privilege of working for The Times.
Will my hon. Friend answer two queries that worry me and with which he has not yet dealt? First, have there yet been any abuses of the kind that he fears? Secondly, will he describe the mechanism by which he envisages this Government having the authority to control satellite broadcasting by companies not based in this kingdom, operating through satellites not controlled from this kingdom, with the uplift to the satellite not within our sovereign control?

6 pm

Mr. Watts: On the first point, I am not suggesting that there is any proven abuse as yet, or indeed that there is likely to be abuse. Surely the principle which has always applied is not that abuse has to be proven before action is taken, but that control over the ownership of the broadcasting media is established, so that the possibility of abuse through excessive concentrations of control and cross-media control cannot arise. That principle is being carried forward in the body of the Bill and will be applied to all other means of broadcasting television services into this country. Curiously, it is not being applied to non-domestic satellite services. I look forward to hearing later from my hon. and learned Friend why such application is not intended.
On the second point—

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mr. Tim Devlin: rose—

Mr. Watts: May I deal with the second point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) before I give way?
I shall deal later with the way in which my amendment would operate once the trigger point was reached. The

connection arises when someone who owns a British newspaper also has a controlling interest in a service which is directed to the United Kingdom. Although my right hon. Friend may argue that we are not in a position to control the ownership of a foreign company which may own the television service, we certainly are in a position to control the ownership of a British newspaper company or group.
Indeed, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench must believe that such controls are feasible, or there would be no point in including in the Bill the power which enables them to give directions, by order laid before the House, as to the ownership of such services. So there cannot be, at least in the minds of Ministers and their officials, any practical problem of application of the principle.

Mr. Tebbit: It appears that my hon. Friend would favour Ministers taking action against a British company in this country in respect of the actions of an allied company outside British jurisdiction. Is that not a slightly odd proposal?

Mr. Watts: No, not at all. We are dealing with the position in which one media company or group controls certain national newspapers and also has a controlling interest in a broadcasting service which is directed to this country. Whether one of the companies is registered abroad is irrelevant. Indeed, as I have already said, Ministers and their officials must have concluded that there is no practical obstacle to applying such controls, or it would make nonsense of one of the powers which they have included in the Bill.

Mr. Riddick: Is not my hon. Friend a little out of date? He referred to the Pilkington committee of 1962. Is it not the case that there were only two television stations in existence then, and that to stop cross-ownership was an important principle at that time? Is it not now the case that there are 17 television channels, that such cross-ownership controls as are necessary are already in the Bill, and that the controls suggested by my hon. Friend are unnecessary and go against all the principles of the free market in which Conservative Members believe?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend advances a respectable argument. If the Government, through the Bill, were advancing the argument that, with the development of technology, particularly satellite broadcasting, there would be such diversity and competition between broadcasters that controls over ownership and over cross-media control were no longer necessary, that would lead to another very interesting philosophical debate. If that were to be the argument, surely it would apply not just to a non-domestic satellite service but also to the domestic satellite service, to the Channel 3 franchisees, and to Channels 5 and 4. If we are dealing with the principle, as I am trying to do, I suggest that the principle should be applied across the board and that there should not be just one convenient exception.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) also wished to intervene.

Mr. Devlin: I wanted to intervene earlier to ask my hon. Friend whether it would not protect the media owner if he were not to be put in the position where, because of his interest in newspapers and in broadcasting, an accusation might be made that he was a monopolist in the media


generally. Whether or not there had been an abuse in the past, the suspicion would arise among the consuming public that these practices might occur in future, or may even be happening now but are well concealed.
My second point concerns the longevity of the Bill. When we are framing legislation, surely it is designed to last for a considerable time, and we cannot merely take cognisance of the circumstances as they exist on the ground at the moment, and say that for these reasons we shall do something which we may change in a few years. Surely, in a Bill to cover broadcasting for the next 20 years, we should seek to establish general principles which will take us through the entire period.

Mr. Watts: On the first point, there could be protection for newspaper owners, although I have not seen them beating a path to my door, urging me to press hard proposals to give them protection. My suggestion would give them certainty about the way in which restrictions might be imposed upon them. As I understand it, the power now in the Bill could be exercised by the Home Secretary as he wished, subject to the consent of the House, without any guidelines for the operation of the powers being laid down in primary legislation. I believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out the rules.
As to my hon. Friend's second point, the whole thrust of the Bill and of Government policy is that controls over concentrations of media ownership and cross-media control are still important for British broadcasting. If that is the case, that principle should be applied to all who operate in the broadcasting services.
As to the reasons for the exception, in May 1989 my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who was Minister of State, said:
No Government can stop British newspaper proprietors buying into overseas transmitters that have been linked to non-DBS services that are not controlled by this country." —[Official Report, 19 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 634.]
I went into that point in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. Clearly that is no longer the position of the Government, because they have taken powers which presumably they have the intention of exercising in certain circumstances.
The group of amendments that I have tabled would give much greater certainty to the provision which is already in the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made it clear in Committee that the Opposition wished to impose, at the earliest possible date, divestment regulations upon non-domestic satellite broadcasters with newspaper interests. My approach does not seek to bring the axe down so rapidly and perhaps precipitately: it seeks to restore the integrity and commercial certainty to cross-media ownership safeguards.
Under the amendments, if a domestic or foreign satellite service that was intended primarily for reception in the United Kingdom exceeded a penetration of 3 million households, it would be made subject to cross-media ownership rules. Those rules would apply to BSB as much as to any other satellite broadcaster, and would provide a level playing field for all satellite operators. The figure of 3 million households encompasses what I understand to be the industry's view, and the financial projections of both BSB and Sky Television. The view of the City is that, at

that level of penetration, a satellite service becomes profitable. Some reports as recently as March have suggested that 2·5 million viewers might be a viable level.
I make it clear that I am not firmly wedded to one figure. If the principle of establishing a threshold of penetration at which satellite services would become subject to the same controls as terrestrial broadcasters were to be accepted, and if good and sound arguments could be adduced to show that another figure might be more appropriate, I would not argue at length that 3 million is necessarily the right figure.
I understand that Sky Television is only one third of the way towards the trigger point that I have suggested in my amendments. That means that there would be plenty of time for that service to continue to develop and to plan for the point at which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State would be required to lay an order requiring the divestment of 80 per cent. of the interest.
I know that Sky Television disputes the 3 million threshold figure contained in my amendment. In a letter to one of my hon. Friends, Sky says:
By the time we are received in three million homes, it is most likely that we will have recorded a cumulative deficit of some £400 million, while we may well remain unprofitable on an operating basis. You should know that the bulk of our income is from subscription fees, rather than advertising. At the time when three million homes can receive Sky, fewer than one million may in fact be subscribing to our film channel. Thus, your amendment would force us to divest ourselves of Sky at a 'distressed' price, depriving our investors of the legitimate rewards of their long standing financial support of Sky.
That is certainly not my intention, and I am prepared to be flexible on the precise threshold. I intend it to be at such a level that the business is viable and profitable and divestment could take place at a profit rather than at a loss to those who have pioneered this substantial investment.
I am disappointed that the Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards against broadcasters who use foreign satellites and who also have considerable interests in the national daily press. The Minister of State's recognition of the need for safeguards is seriously undermined by this loophole. My amendments will permit the safeguards against cross-media ownership to be applied equitably and consistently without fear or favour and with due regard to this new market and its development to successful maturity. This is a proper and fair solution to a problem that the Government have apparently had difficulty in addressing.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has said that the Government have decided not to extend ownership controls to foreign satellite users, partly because they use a different frequency from that used by domestic satellite services. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend said:
There is a maximum of five DBS channels under international agreement, all of which have been allocated by the IBA to BSB, so giving it a monopoly.
Speaking about the non-DBS channels, he said:
There is potentially open-ended scope for … developments under diverse ownership … the case for restricting entry to the market is not remotely the same as it is for the five DBS channels under a single owner."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 30 January 1990; c. 383–4.]
6.15 pm
I did not think that the principle on which the Government's approach was founded was the principle or monopoly but that it related to the dangers implicit in


concentrations of media ownership, especially of cross-media ownership. It is logically indefensible for the Government to maintain that cross-media control is generally wrong, but that it is all right if a particular technical method of broadcasting is used. Any problems that may arise from the concentration of power over the outlets of information will not arise because of the technical mechanism by which the signal arrives in the home.
It is irrational and arbitrary to base a decision on whether the ownership of the service should be regulated solely on the frequency or power of the broadcasting equipment that is being used. By analogy, if there were a proposal to regulate the printing processes that are used by different newspapers, it would be seen as preposterous. It would be ridiculous if we had one mechanism for those using hot metal and another for those who use modern technology.
It is not sensible to draw a distinction between foreign satellite users and the DBS operator on the grounds that BSB enjoys a monopoly of the United Kingdom direct broadcast by satellite services. All the broadcasters—terrestrial stations, cable and satellites—whether domestic or non-domestic, will be competing with one another, and none will enjoy a monopoly. That is one of the benefits that the greater variety of that technology and the legislation will now provide to the British people.
The question is best looked at from the point of view of the viewer. As he sits watching television, he does not see any technical distinction between the different satellite services, or even between satellite and terrestrial services. The amendments address a serious loophole in the safeguards against excessive cross-media control. The Government have recognised the need for restrictions, but have failed to apply them equally to domestic satellite and terrestrial broadcasters and to those using foreign satellites. The amendments will give integrity to the cross-media ownership safeguards and ensure that the Bill preserves the public interest. They will provide for control only when needed, once profitability and significant market penetration have been achieved, thereby ensuring that investment can be maintained in this important and developing industry.
The Bill will mark a crossroads or a turning point for safeguards against cross-media control, but if we fail to maintain the standards that have acted effectively across all media interests until now, the principle of the safeguards will be discredited.
I urge the Minister of State to give serious further consideration to the principle underlying my amendments. Even if he is unhappy about the precise trigger point of 3 million homes which I have suggested, I hope that he will look again at the principle of establishing a trigger point at which the controls over cross-media ownership will be made to apply to satellite services.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) began one of his interventions, as one would expect from a man of such conspicuous honour, with an announcement about his employment by Sky Television. He then referred to my employment by The Times. The matter is absolutely trivial and I would not raise it except for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has done so. I have not accepted work for any Murdoch paper since

Wapping, and I do not propose to do so. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks because that is not his way. I simply correct his error and am pleased that he gave me the opportunity to clarify the matter.
Although the Opposition amendment appears earlier on the list than the one moved by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), I was happy to give precedence to him because I suspected from his amendments—a suspicion which was confirmed by his speech—that the Opposition would be happy to support him if he wished to press his amendment to a vote. We will withdraw amendment No. 110 to give him that support, for the simple reason that the principles embodied in his amendment are the same as those embodied in ours. The basic difference between his amendment and ours is that we want some instant protection written into the Bill, and he is proposing that protection should arise at what I gladly concede is the important moment—when a satellite station not now covered by the Bill achieves a number of viewers that makes it comparable with a Channel 3, Channel 4 or a Channel 5 broadcasting system.
Although we will vote on amendment No. 110 if there is no vote on amendments Nos. 8 and 9, we will gladly withdraw our amendment in favour of his, because it seems to us that the hon. Gentleman made two essential and undeniable points: first, the concentration of ownership is bad for democracy in this country, as democracy requires a pluralistic media system almost as much as it requires a pluralistic political system; secondly, concentration of ownership is bad for every section of the economy.
The hon. Member for Slough was interrupted by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) who asked, I suppose rhetorically, whether he believed in the free-market system. The hon. Member for Colne Valley nods. If he is opposing amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 110, he is saying that the best way to preserve the free-market system is to encourage concentration. The hon. Gentleman may believe that, but Adam Smith did not: Adam Smith believed that Governments had to act to prevent concentration, which is what the amendments aim to do. Therefore, I offer the merits of our amendment No. 110, but repeat that I will gladly withdraw it if amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are pressed to the vote.
As with other amendments that have already been moved, the intention of amendment No. 110 is to limit concentration of media ownership. It aims to avoid increasing concentration—an aim that, if the White Paper is to be believed, is shared by the Government. Paragraph 6.48 of the White Paper was precise on that when it said:
the Government is determined that ownership in the independent sector should be, and remain, widely spread.
My only reservation about that statement is the implication that ownership of the media is widely spread now. It is not; indeed, it is so concentrated already that I look forward to the day when a Monopolies and Mergers Commission general reference examines not simply the misuse of concentration—one company promoting a sister company, or a different company within the same ownership—but the principle of media concentration, and gives the Government of the day advice on how that concentration can be ended.
In other countries, when concentration of ownership is regarded as being against the public interest, it results in Government action to split up—"disperse" is the phrase


used in America—the companies that form the conglomerate. I have no doubt that that is right and necessary for the media industry in Britain. No doubt a future Labour Government would want to make such a monopolies reference.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and on an a priori basis I sympathise with it. However, can he enlighten the House further by giving some figures relating to the extent of present concentration and cross-ownership? One of his arguments is that the problem is already fairly severe.

Mr. Hattersley: I proposed to give the basic figure later, but I will give it now, and repeat it later. We all know that Mr. Rupert Murdoch owns 35 per cent. of Sunday newspaper circulation and approaching 35 per cent. of daily newspaper circulation. That is unhealthy—

Mr. Riddick: What about television?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
We also know that Mr. Murdoch owns a satellite station, and that he hopes that that station will have millions rather than hundreds of thousands of viewers. Hon. Members must decide whether that degree of concentration—for which the hon. Member for Slough is preparing with his trigger mechanism, which will be "ticked in" when the viewing population of Sky Television reaches a certain figure—is such a danger that it wants to support an immediate proposal to limit that concentration.
The Bill is right to provide that no proprietor of a local or national newspaper shall have more than a 20 per cent. share in the ownership of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 company. If we have a complaint about that, it is that it is not sufficiently rigorous in trying to separate the ownership of newspapers and television. The only intention in our amendment—and, I think, in the amendment of the hon. Member for Slough—is to try to apply that same principle to all types of television broadcasting.
The words that we seek to include in page 146 would apply that principle to all types of satellite broadcasting. It would technically apply to BSB, as it would apply to Sky Television. I want the Minister to tell the House where BSB stands on those matters, and how far it is governed by the present regulations.
If the right hon. Member for Chingford is interested in what advice I have had from BSB, I can tell him that I received a good deal of advice before the Bill's Second Reading. I also had some advice from Sky Television to correct my supposed errors. It is almost impossible to avoid advice from the young gentleman who represents Sky Television on such matters. I have talked to both interests, in both directions. These things are best discussed without suggestions of motives, or the suggestion that anyone who takes advice from anyone who knows about the industry is failing to fulfil his obligations as a Member of Parliament.
As I understand it, the reservations about limitations on ownership of newspapers and television do not, as the Bill stands, apply to BSB. However, BSB has told me, as it has told other hon. Members, that it believes that secondary legislation will apply limitations. That was

made clear by the Minister in Committee. However, Sky Television will not have any such limitations imposed on it. Ownership of 35 per cent. of British newspapers—both Sundays and weekdays—will not in any way prohibit or inhibit outright ownership of Sky Television.
In Committee, the Minister gave four reasons why he thought that Sky Television should not be caught by that provision. He said that non-domestic satellite broadcasters would remove their uplinks to the continent, and so lose jobs in Britain. He said that Astra services could not be regulated efficiently and effectively by the Independent Television Companies Association Ltd. He said that regulations should not be used to stunt the growth of an infant company. He said that he disapproved of vendettas against Mr. Rupert Murdoch.
In an earlier debate, we discussed his second point—about whether regulation is possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Slough that if we are saying it is wrong, illegal, improper and undesirable to hold simultaneously ownership of, or a controlling interest in, two institutions, the regulation can be applied at either end of the equation by saying that companies can continue to broadcast if the European convention on transfrontier broadcasting requires it, but that that requires a person to divest himself of interest in and control of British newspapers that are his personal possessions. That is said in the United States of America and in most countries with an active, efficient and effective monopolies policy, and there is no reason why it should not apply in Britain.
I must make it clear to the Minister that we have no wish to see jobs go, and no belief that they would go if the Sky organisation were required to choose between one industry and the other. The Minister was quoted in The Guardian as saying that he did not want to pull the plug on a company that was already up and running and had cost vast amounts of money. I do not believe that the plug—in his elegant phrase—would be pulled. The operation would continue, but adjustments would be made in terms of ownership. That is what happens in other countries that apply an effective monopolies policy, and there is no reason why it should not happen here.
Too often Mr. Rupert Murdoch has come to the Government and said, "Unless you do exactly what I tell you, I shall pull out and leave the company in the wilderness and throw the men on the unemployment scrap heap." He said that about buying The Times and The Sunday Times and about buying Today. On both occasions, the Government said, "Okay, if you hold the pistol at our head, we shall do what you tell us and succumb to your threats." The threats were not real then and they are not real now.

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry if my phraseology does not pass muster with a litterateur of the sophistication of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will come to the point underlined, however infelicitously expressed. As I understand it, hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in Sky Television, which at the moment is one of those rare businesses that spend money but do not make any. Is the basis of his proposition that there will be a queue of investors ready to pick this up, as of now, if the House were minded to insist on divestment? The right hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to say that he thinks it wrong for Rupert Murdoch to own Sky Television, but not wilfully to mislead us about the consequences of making that change.

Mr. Hattersley: The experience of other countries—Australia in particular—demonstrates two things. First, a large number of investors are ready to put money into television potential rather than immediate television returns. Secondly, television companies are like football clubs in that they hold an awe for a certain sort of person —one who, for reasons such as, dare I say it, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Prime Minister and the Government, is prepared to lose money on television so as to be a television tycoon. The idea that if we tell Mr. Murdoch that he cannot do both with the present degree of ownership Sky Television will disappear from the screens is a fantasy. The Minister should do better than that in defending his proposals.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but if he is I am puzzled to know why the sponsors of BSB have had such difficulty in raising money to launch their company. There does not seem to be a queue of investors ready and able to put in money on the scale that is required and to lose money for three, four or even five years on this scale.

Mr. Hattersley: My information is that they have not had anything like the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. That is probably as accurate as what he said about me and The Times and The Sunday Times. On the other hand, I believe that BSB will prosper in spite of the restrictions placed on it, as Sky Television will prosper eventually under the Murdoch ownership or any other ownership. The idea that it would collapse without this one man owning and controlling it is a fantasy.
The Minister also suggested that our concern about this is related to, using his word, a "vendetta" against Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Let me make my position clear. I am sceptical about all newspaper proprietors. I do not like the idea of a newspaper and its policies being owned and controlled by one man, and even less do I like the idea of several newspapers and their policies being owned and controlled by one man. My concern is for concentration in general to be reduced and, wherever possible, to be avoided. Mr. Murdoch becomes the example around which I base that argument, for two reasons: first, he gets a clear advantage under the Bill; second, the extent of his newspaper holdings.
In answer to an intervention I gave only the bare bones of the extent of Mr. Murdoch's ownership. He owns two Sunday newspapers whose circulation is about 35 per cent. of all copies sold. He owns three daily newspapers whose circulation is about 35 per cent. of all copies sold. He owns seven magazines, 20 per cent. of Pearson plc, which publishes the Financial Times, and 50 per cent. of The Economist. He has now acquired the Collins Publishing Group, with its publishing and printing interests. He is the issue because he owns so much.

Mr. Gale: Let us put that in context. There are 22 national newspapers, published by 11 companies, and more than 1,000 national daily, weekly and regional newspapers of which Mr. Murdoch owns none. Some of them are investing in BSB.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Who pays you?

Mr. Gale: I have no vested interest in this whatsoever.
Is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) criticising the proprietor of newspapers who sells newspapers? Is he criticising success?

Mr. Hattersley: I am not criticising the proprietor of a newspaper. It may be that any of us, given the chance, would acquire those newspapers and use them to promote a position. I am criticising the system and a Government who allow the concentration to fall into the hands of one individual. The hon. Gentleman suggests that Mr. Murdoch's position is not a dominant one. That is in defiance of all the regulations and legislation that, on other occasions, the hon. Member will support.
According to the criterion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Mr. Murdoch was in such a dominant position that he should not have acquired The Times and The Sunday Times or Today without investigation. Therefore, even before he acquired those national newspapers, he was in a dominant position as defined by the legislation governing monopolies and mergers. No moral blame attaches to Mr. Murdoch. The system that the Government have allowed to continue and intensify permits him to control a vast number of newspapers. The idea that he should be allowed to move into television is dangerous in itself but also inevitable when the provisions in the Bill allow him to do so in a way not allowed to other institutions, companies and organisations.
The Minister signified agreement when I said that, while the Bill does not specify regulations over BSB, the position of that company will be qualified and changed. We are talking about Sky Television. We have to ask anybody who disagrees with amendments Nos. 110, 8 and 9 how they can justify a system that says, as the law does, that as we are worried about concentration, particularly as it applies to Channels 1 and 3, and other national terrestrial channels, there shall be a limit on cross-ownership involving such channels, but not on cross-ownership of satellite channels and newspapers, even if—Mr. Murdoch would say when—the satellite channels have a viewing figure as great as, or equivalent to, those for BBC1 or ITV.
What is the principle in saying that it is wrong for this or that newspaper to have an interest in independent television when independent television has a viewing figure of 20 million, but it is right for Mr. Murdoch to have an interest in his satellite channel even if it achieves a viewing figure just as great as that for independent television? It is impossible to make a distinction between the two. The two things are logically incompatible. If we prevent cross-ownership in one case, logic requires us to prevent cross-ownership in the other and that is all that we are asking for. We are asking that every television company shall be restricted in its relationships with newspapers, as is the case with independent television companies and Channels 1 and 3.
I hope and believe that the proposals made both by me and the hon. Member for Slough will commend themselves not only to the House but to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. One of his great achievements and contributions to life in Britain is his invention of new words. In "Sky Update" he says:
One of the advantages of the Bill is a level playing field. The Bill will create a more neutral field of competition by eliminating certain preferences and privileges that previously offered advantages to certain broadcasters not available to the others.


The Bill offers to certain broadcasters advantages that are not available to the others in that it has no prohibition on cross-ownership between satellite channels and newspapers.
Amendments Nos. 110, 8 and 9 provide the level playing field for which Mr. Rupert Murdoch calls. If any or all three are carried, we shall get not a reduction in services or employment, nor a vendetta against one man or one company, but a system under which, in a democracy, a concentration of newspaper ownership and television ownership is seen as fundamentally bad. We are standing out against such concentration in this temporary way until we can have a proper investigation into cross-ownership and multi-media ownership and a real distribution of power and influence.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall be brief because, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we want to make progress. I hope that he will excuse me for saying that I am disinclined to take too much of a lecture from him on the evils of the concentration of media ownership when I recollect that he is a member of a party which opposed the introduction of independent television to break the BBC monopoly. Indeed, the Labour party opposed the introduction of independent radio to break the BBC's monopoly.

Mr. Robin Corbett: That was 20 years ago.

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, is saying that the Labour party has learnt something over the past 20 years, that is a good thing, but I suspect that it has not learnt very much. It seems that it has not learnt that one of the consequences of publishing a successful newspaper is that that journal acquires readers. That, however, is one of the things which is understood by Mr. Robert Maxwell. After all, the circulation of the Daily Mirror is close to that of The Sun. It is understood also by the proprietors of The Independent, which was launched in the teeth of competition from dominant owners. It now has a circulation about the same as that of The Times. We should be talking about access to the market and consumer choice rather than the concentration of ownership.
It has already been said that there is vast consumer choice on the news stands. I know that it is irritating that so many consumers happen to choose newspapers published by Mr. Murdoch, but that is one of the penalties of success. So long as there is open access, however, the problem does not seem as serious as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook pretends.
The same is true of television. If there were still only three channels, the consideration would be different—that would be so if there were only four channels—but we now have 17 channels and there are more to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) put the issue neatly when he asked the House to consider the matter from the viewer's point of view. If viewers happen to enjoy watching a television station owned by an ogre who happens to own a newspaper, that is the viewers' choice. If there are many other television stations whose programmes they could watch if they wished, is it an absolute evil that they watch those shown by the station owned by the newspaper proprietor? Is it anti-democratic to give people

a choice and allow them to use the channels that they wish, regardless of who owns them, provided that there is adequate choice?
It seems that we have never had more choice in terms of our daily press, magazines and television than we have today. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) wears an expression of distaste. He should remember just how long ago it had been since a new newspaper such as The Independent was launched. He should remember, too, that The Independent was launched by a group—not by a great press baron—which has carved out a successful newspaper in remarkable style. We are now considering the possibility of newcomers entering television in a similar way.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook chided me for suggesting that BSB had had difficulty in raising the money to launch its satellite. All right, I accept that he is correct and that it is not difficult to raise the money to start a new satellite television station. I will take his word for that, withdraw what I said and accept his argument. Let us assume that there will be many satellites in the sky. According to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it will not be difficult to find people to finance satellite television stations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, all that we have to do is to consider these matters from the viewer's point of view. Those who are responsible for television stations must show programmes which viewers like. I do not accept that there is a problem as great as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggests. I know that it is unworthy of me, but I suspect that any problem might have something to do with the same events which caused the right hon. Gentleman to cease to write for Mr. Murdoch and The Times.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest as someone who is involved in programmes twice a week for Sky Television, as the humble assistant to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I clean up the blood afterwards in the studio. I represent freedom, truth and justice. I am still not sure what the right hon. Gentleman represents. That ends the commercial break.
I am not here to defend Mr. Murdoch. He owns so many national newspapers that he does not need me to do that job. I am not here to defend Sky either. It does not need my defence because it has been an extremely successful set of channels. It is filling a need and adding variety to viewing. It is providing what I find to be a most attractive public service, a good news service. If this short debate allows me to say nothing else, I am at least able to say that. Unfortunately, I do not think that the debate will achieve much else.
I question the motives of amendments Nos. 110 and 8. It is clear that on the Opposition Benches there is an overwhelming dislike of Rupert Murdoch. That dislike is so strong that it is irrational and distorts judgment. The Australian and New Zealand Labour parties have seen the virtues of working with someone who owns powerful communication media so that they can put over their case. Here in the United Kingdom, however, the Labour party's irrationality has distorted its judgment.
Secondly, there is the Labour party's dislike of the events which took place at Wapping. In my view, that dislike is justified. Those events were monstrous, but they related to the newspaper medium. If we are still carrying


on the argument over Wapping, it is incumbent on us all not to co-operate with or write for The Times, The Sun or other Murdoch newspapers. Instead, we should continue the struggle. It would be incumbent upon us all also to bring forward proposals that the Labour party can implement when it forms the next Government. I shall be interested to hear what proposals we have to right the wrongs of Wapping. If we do not have any, hitting out is irrelevant, and in a way that is damaging to the Labour party's case. We are talking about a powerful medium of communication and we need to put over our case on all the channels that are available to us. That is essential.
As I have said, our motive is an irrational dislike, while amendment No. 8 deals with commercial rivalry. It has been admitted that amendment No. 8 springs from BSB. It is surely incumbent upon us to legislate neither for simple vindictiveness nor for commercial rivalry.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend that Sky News is very good. I have been willing to appear on it, when I have been asked, because it is a platform. It is surely important that we should seek out platforms. My hon. Friend does his own side a grave injustice, however, when he suggests that the Labour party's approach is part of a Murdoch vendetta. I do not like the man, and I have no reason to like him, but we are talking about cross-media ownership and concentration of power. If my hon. Friend misses that point, he should sit down and not bother to continue.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I remind him that I am standing on my side of the Chamber, that the Labour party is my party, and that I am advancing my case. I shall take up the substance of my hon. Friend's argument when I have advanced a little further in my speech.
Do not mistake the side on whose behalf I am speaking. I am speaking on the side of the Labour party and in support of communicating my party's ideals, policies and ambitions to the wider electorate. I suggest that the Labour party's irrational dislike—this applies to both amendments—distorts judgment. If the aim is to restrict monopolistic ownership and overlapping cross-ownership, irrational dislike is not the right approach. That is not the sensible way to approach these issues. We are lashing out without having made any rational calculation of how to achieve our objectives. That is about as sensible as using an incinerator to improve standards on The Sun.
Sky Television is here. We are not legislating for something that is to come, like Channel 5. Sky is a fait accompli, and a successful one. I hope that those of my colleagues who are involved in programmes for BSB will be successful and will not face some of the consequences that have had to be borne by those who have been involved with Sky Television. I hope that they will work for a channel that is a success story. Sky Television is interesting and it is successful, and the Labour party should not be opposed to pluralism. Viewers want it. It increases choice and diversity, and it is good in itself.
What we should be doing, and what our opposition to this Bill attempts to do, is to defend the basis of viewing —the duopoly that has provided such high quality throughout the years. That should be our aim—not to outlaw pluralism, which is what my party is seeking to do.

The service is there; it is on Astra. Rupert Murdoch saw an opportunity, as an entrepreneur would, and took it. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley): if there is so much money around, why did no one else do that? Why was it left to Murdoch? Where were all the British entrepreneurs rushing forward wanting to spend £2 million to £3 million a week in losses?
An entrepreneur like Murdoch does not need the permission of the Labour party to set up his station. Indeed, he does not really need the permission of the Government, other than that it is on cable. The station has given an undertaking to abide by the same rules of impartiality and standards as the terrestrial channels. I am as inclined to trust that as to trust the impartiality of a news service provided by the Daily Mail on BSB. The station is there and it is no use sulking about it. Initially, I dreaded it. I thought that it would debase standards. It has not done so, partly because standards on the terrestrial channels are so high. It has not been the disaster that I thought it would be; on the contrary, it has been very successful. It will have to continue to be if it is to pay off its enormous debt and sustain employment. It will need a period of profit to be viable.
With Sky facing that decision, what should we do through this legislation? Should we be vindictive, as the amendments are? Should we say, "Let us get at Murdoch"? Should we sulk and try to get our own back for the wrongs of Wapping—kick it or close it? Or should we try to deal with it in a way that will sustain a business that adds variety to people's viewing, that provides jobs, and that provides diversity and competition in news services? That is what it should be about.
The amendments would effectively close the station. The Opposition's amendment No. 110 says that he must divest now, which effectively means its collapse. No one will rush forward to sustain losses of £2 million a week. Amendment No. 8 is a time bomb—divest at some future stage, to be determined by BSB the commercial competitor. That is what is so monstrous about that amendment. There is no point in getting at Rupert Murdoch by endangering 1,000 jobs and four or five new channels. It would be daft to do that. The station will eventually be successful. As the principle of the Labour party's policy review is, "For heaven's sake, don't frighten anybody", why are we rushing in with such draconian penalties for one medium, one channel, one television system and one person? It does not make sense to do that. We are just saying, "Boo."
There is a case for stopping cross-ownership. That is a basic principle of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) should not accuse me of selling out. I want to achieve the case in a sensible, coherent way, not by simple vindictiveness. That was our approach to Channel 3, the ITV companies, and it is sensible to sustain that approach. We cannot achieve that by the suicide method, by immediate destruction. We must allow the ITC, at its discretion, at a time when it will not be disruptive to employment, at a time when it will sustain the variety for viewers, to take that decision. If we were serious about the legislation, if we were serious about its objectives, we would do it in that way and not through the two amendments, which are silly gestures that will achieve nothing. We must first take a decision on "whether" and then decide the how and the when. If we do not do it that way, we are not being serious.
We would be indulging in gesture politics—schoolground politics—"Yaboo, sucks to Murdoch, we are going to get you." Frankly, that is a game I do not want to play.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made a courageous speech. It certainly illustrated the difficulties in which he sometimes finds himself within his party. His at least was a speech which looked forward. He understands what television in the 1990s is all about. The speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) showed that he understood only what the newspapers of the 1920s were all about. His was a curiously old-fashioned speech, although it contained all the contemporary characters. It was full of Murdoch-bashing. I had a touch of sympathy with some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments because I, too, have been a Murdoch-basher. The House may recall that, almost alone on the Conservative Benches, I opposed Mr. Murdoch's takeover of the Sunday Times and The Times when some of those who appear to be supporting the amendments today—which will restrict ownership of television stations—were curiously silent. The defects in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the way in which it applied to the concentration of newspapers which then existed were far more relevant to what was happening then than the amendments are to what is happening today.
As I listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) on amendment No. 8, I recalled John Betjeman's famous line:
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough.
That is what should happen to my hon. Friend's amendment, which attacks an imaginary monopoly that does not and is not likely to exist. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook harked back to yesteryear—an era when dominant newspaper proprietors issued edicts to their editors such as "Praise this man" or "Attack that political party" and their edicts were carried out. That does not happen in the modern, pluralistic world of television. It hardly exists even in newspapers, although they still retain some vestiges of that old-fashioned control because editors can spike stories, print leaders and write whatever headlines they like. There is a great myth about proprietorial control in television.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook attacked Mr. Murdoch largely on his newspaper interests. Mr. Murdoch has been given a bum rap by Opposition Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Mr. Murdoch—whose unqualified admirer I am not—is a media mogul whose virtues outweigh his imaginary vices as a media monster. He has done a great deal of good for the British newspaper industry by creating a new climate of opportunity. He has been a brave investor, investing more than £500 million in the print industry. He has liberated the entire national newspaper industry from the fetters imposed on it by the print unions and the quicksands of soft management. Other newspapers do not like admitting it, but it was only because Mr. Murdoch blazed the trail in changing the labour structure and labour costs of the newspaper industry that it was possible for newspapers such asThe Independent to be born and for a whole range of newspapers to become profitable and viable once again. There is now a whole new range of printing practices, including colour printing. On the whole, the good that Mr. Murdoch has done for the

newspaper industry is much greater than the harm that he has done with the bad standards that he has allowed to creep into his tabloid newspapers.
On the newspaper argument alone, the contention that Mr. Murdoch is a dangerous animal with too much power concentrated in his hands is obsolete. The argument of obsolescence becomes much greater with regard to what is happening in television. We are now entering an era of evolution almost equivalent to the printing revolution in the time of John Caxton several centuries ago. A completely new scene is emerging. One has only to stop for a moment to realise that by the time the Bill becomes law there will be 41 television channels available in this country, of which Mr. Murdoch will own four.

Mr. Hattersley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, as one always says on these occasions, but will he take it a step further? If he believes that concentration of ownership no longer matters—partly because newspaper owners no longer give instructions to editors and partly, as I suppose that he may say in a moment, because technology in newspapers and television means that new industries develop and new companies come into the market—does he believe in any restriction at all? Does the 20 per cent. rule embodied in the Bill have any validity for independent television channels—for instance, for Channel 3? Does it make any sense? The hon. Gentleman's stance is logical only if he says that he wants no restrictions at all. Will he explain why he seems to support restrictions in general, but not restrictions on Mr. Murdoch?

7 pm

Mr. Aitken: The age of the regulator in television is passing. In a few years' time the Bill will look old fashioned. The restriction to 20 per cent. Ownership—although it placates the political community, which needs to reassure the public—will seem unnecessary and foolish in a few years' time.
Just as there has been an expansion of diversity and plurality in newwspapers, so there is a greater expansion of diversity in the world of television. If Mr. Murdoch owns only four of the 41 channels which will exist by the end of the year, that cannot be said to be a dangerous concentration. He has taken on four channels with tremendous financial risk. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who said that to attack Mr. Murdoch for what he has done is to attack the essence of pluralism and diversity.
There is a myth about proprietorial control in television. I have some experience of television and I do not believe that the proprietor of a television station will be able to sit in his castle, counting his doubloons, with his fingertips on the levers of power and get results. In reality, a modern television station is a honeycomb of power cells that one cannot control. When I was briefly a chief executive with power over a television station in this country I found that it was absolutely impossible to control the 500 journalists, every one of whom was a prima donna, or the five famous presenters who were more trouble than the 500 journalists, or the whole regiment of temperamental graphic artists and producers. Even the unions—usually a bastion of conservatism in television stations—for the technical staff and journalists, were wild gazelles out of control. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who I see is in


her place, was shop steward of the journalists' union at TV-am. She was scarcely susceptible to control, and nor were old uncle Rowland rat and all—none of them could be controlled.
If Mr. Murdoch is better at controlling my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) or the hon. Member for Great Grimsby than I was at controlling the galére at TV-am, he may be a better man than I. The idea that such old-fashioned, 19th-century political control exists is a virtual myth and an impossibility. Yet Mr. Murdoch's enemies believe that it will still exist in television companies in future. That is all nonsense.
The only argument made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition with which I have some sympathy was in relation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That safeguard still exists. It can always be called into play by any Government against any commercial organisation in this country. I do not think that Mr. Murdoch, or any other television mogul, has anything to fear from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because of the expanding diversity of television in this country.
On the ground that Mr. Murdoch has four channels out of 41, the argument about political control looks like nonsense. Therefore, the amendment is misplaced and, despite some reservations that we all feel about Mr. Murdoch, it is wrong and I hope that we shall vote it down.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) took us back to TV-am and he said that things have moved on since then. They have not moved on. He referred to one of his former employees with whom he had had some difficulties. Clearly the situation remains the same—the bosses are over there on the Conservative Benches and the workers are over here.
I say to the hon. Member for Thanet, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not an argument about Rupert Murdoch. I have no brief for Rupert Murdoch. As I said in an intervention, Sky News is very good and I wish it well. In many ways, it is a professional set-up staffed by some ex-BBC employees whom I knew previously and who are first-rate workers. They make a good product.
The debate is about the concentration of media power. That is what this part of the Bill is all about and that is what the amendments try to prevent. Obviously there will be some arguments about when we do it, but clearly there is a feeling that yet again there will be concentrations of power in an area where there is potential for abuse. We know that broadcasting, and television broadcasting in particular, is the most powerful communications medium in the country. Hon. Members must express concern and interest about how the ownership of such a powerful medium is used.
In our society, whoever controls the channels of communication has real power. One does not need power from guns, bullets and tanks in our society. In many ways real power comes from the control of the channels of communication. We must be wary that there is no great concentration of ownership in the channels of communication because there is always the potential for power abuse.
From experiences overseas we know what happens if there is a coup. The first thing that they rush to get hold

of is the radio and television station. They know that the person who controls the channels of communication has real power.
Market forces cannot be allowed free rein in such a sensitive area. In theory, it may be very well to suggest that we are all able to print newspapers and open television or radio stations, but in reality we know that that freedom does not exist on an equal basis and so it is nonsense to suggest it.
There is far too much concentration of ownership in the media in this country already. I no more like Mr. Robert Maxwell's approach to the media than I like Mr. Rupert Murdoch's. I do not want to see millionaire moguls strutting around with so much of the power in our society concentrated in their hands.
I shall quote from statistics which appeared in some Labour research earlier this year which makes it quite clear that:
seven national newspaper owners have widespread media interests … Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, 'Tiny' Rowland, Lord Stevens, Viscount Rothermere, Viscount Blakenham and the Scott Trust which owns The Guardian.
The report particularly highlights the position of Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. Robert Maxwell.
I do not come with a brief from British Satellite Broadcasting, although I have done some work for it. I am an occasional presenter of an excellent programme produced by BSB called, "Left, Right and Centre".

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We know now.

Mr. Banks: I shall bear that stricture in mind. I wish that the programme was seen by more than half a dozen people, but I am sure that the quality arguments will eventually emerge. However, we are not treating BSB and Sky Television in an even-handed fashion. News International UK's newspaper and other publishing interests and its control of Sky Television are in direct conflict with the standards of cross-media ownership applied, in the public interest, to other media groups, including the equally fledgling British Satellite Broadcasting.
The Government have defended what we consider to be an inconsistent approach by arguing that the public interest inherent in Sky Television's role in opening up broadcasting outweighs the public interest in preventing over-concentrations of influence. That is nonsense. The Bill, which has been even handed in other respects, has been drafted in such a way as to exclude Sky Television and Rupert Murdoch from regulations that apply to other stations, including BSB. It is not the case that the Labour party wants to take some revenge on Rupert Murdoch for what happened at Wapping. We have no reason to love the man, but we are far more concerned about the concentration of the media in his hands and in the hands of people such as Robert Maxwell.
Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to be aware that such concentrations are unhealthy in our society. Even if they do not like the amendmens, they must be prepared to introduce provisions that ensure that there is no development of concentration that would undermine the democracy for which we all stand.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Those of us who served on the Committee considering the Bill have witnessed an interesting metamorphosis within the Labour party. At first, whenever Sky Television was mentioned,


there was laughter among Labour Members, on the basis that nobody watched it and that it had no chance of success. As we spent hundreds of hours discussing the Bill, the attitude of the Labour party changed, as Labour Members realised that, at a relatively fast rate compared with other new media, people were equipping themselves with satellite dishes and the audience was growing.
The culmination of that metamorphosis has occurred in today's debate. The Labour party now takes Sky Television so seriously that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) devoted his entire speech to Rupert Murdoch. He protested that he was not interested in Rupert Murdoch and was concerned only with the principle, so why did he devote virtually his entire speech to him?
The reason was made quite clear by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in a remarkable and excellent speech. Of course, it is simply a Labour vendetta against Rupert Murdoch and News International because of what happened at Wapping and because the Labour movement wants to do down Rupert Murdoch and News International. That causes me immense anxiety about the way in which the Bill is drafted, but not in the same direction as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) and some Opposition Members.
As the Bill is drafted, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government, they would be able to put Sky Television out of business overnight. They would not even need an affirmative order of the House. They could use a negative resolution by pretending that there had been an offence against the rules of cross-media ownership laid down in the Bill. They would not even have to come to the House, although I think that they should have to.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook screws up his face and nods from side to side, but perhaps he should have read the Bill; he would then know what it says. A Labour Government would not need to come to the House for an affirmative order to enable the Home Secretary to take action against a satellite channel. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to examine whether there should be further protection in the Bill for the satellite operators.
The other side of the debate has been an attempt by British Satellite Broadcasting to knock out the competition. That is reasonable. BSB sees an opportunity to knock out Sky Channel, but I do not think that it will succeed. It is rather odd that it should try, because it was clear in the trade press to those of us following the issue that, under the former Home Secretary, BSB was offered exactly the same cross-media rules as now apply to Sky Channel, Astra and non-terrestrial satellites. BSB cannot complain if something that it rejected is being allowed for Sky Channel and other non-terrestrial satellite stations. Therefore, it is important that we reject both arguments.
7.15 pm
Compared with other television outlets, Astra is not limited. The DBS channels have been allocated to BSB; that is fair enough. The terrestrial channels have been allocated, and franchises come up from time to time. However, Astra, Astra 2, and possibly Astra 3 in future are not so limited. Anyone who can raise the money could set up in competition with the existing channels.
The exchange drawn out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was interesting. Either the Labour party believes that the money is

available and that it is easy for anyone to compete, or it believes that it is difficult to raise the money. It seemed to me that the Labour party wanted the best of both worlds.
If the amendments are carried, there will be one of two possible effects on Rupert Murdoch and News International. Either Sky Channel will have to move out of Britain and beyond the jurisdiction of the Bill, and the jobs and the technological advances made by Sky Channel would leave the country, surely to the detriment of Great Britain, or Sky Channel will have to be sold. The only people who could afford to buy Sky Channel and keep it going would be foreign media interests. Either the Labour party wants to lose jobs from Britain or it wants foreign people to take over those interests.

Mr. Cryer: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about jobs. Has he made any representations to HTV, which is to sack more than 100 television workers next Monday because it needs to build up money for the war chest engendered by the Bill? It has plans in the pipeline to get rid of more jobs. The hon. Gentleman should do something about those jobs instead of defending Rupert Murdoch.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) or anyone who has worked in television knows that there has been substantial overmanning in the television industry, as there has been in the newspaper industry, so a shake-out is likely. If the hon. Gentleman knew what he was talking about, he would know that the administrative jobs and the jobs in Livingston in Scotland are particularly sensitive and would be at risk.
My hon. and learned Friend has got the balance between principle and practicality exactly right. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support that. Otherwise, we shall simply be backing a vendetta by the Labour party, and I want no part of it.

Mr. Buchan: I very much regret the tone that the protagonists of Mr. Murdoch have taken in today's debate. If there is an axe being ground, it is pro-Murdoch rather than anti-Murdoch. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has been on the Committee with me for the past three months and I resent totally any suggestion that my attitude towards the freedom of the press and television and the safeguarding of the rights of the British people has something to do with a personal dislike of Mr. Murdoch. I have encountered Mr. Murdoch only once and I felt sorry for him—he is not a particularly impressive character.

Mr. Michael Foot: He has the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) as a friend.

Mr. Buchan: If he has the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) as a supporter, that is the final indictment. He is not a very impressive character. Like one or two others, he has great ability to read a balance sheet, which I have not, but I do not consider that that makes him particularly bright. I do not think that he is even particularly interested in what his papers and broadcasting interests say. It is most curious. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was involved with the Daily Express when Beaverbrook ran it. At least Beaverbrook had something to say. He had some odd views, and I may have disagreed with his values, but he had some values.
The curious aspect is the valuelessness of Murdoch—the fact that money has become the only criterion and he measures his success by money.
I do not want a marvellous instrument such as television and broadcasting, which allows us to speak to humanity throughout the globe, to be left in the hands of anyone who is concerned only with making money. When the alphabet was invented, it was not flogged off letter by letter. Yet the Government, with such an instrument in their hands, are flogging it off not for the purpose of educating or entertaining—they have dropped the need to educate, inform and entertain—but to make money. I regret that that is what the right hon. Member for Chingford and the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) are defending.

Mr. Tebbit: I am defending not Mr. Murdoch's ability to make money, but the right of viewers and readers to choose to watch his channels or read his newspapers rather than somebody else's if they so wish and if there are plenty of other channels and newspapers. It may irritate the hon. Gentleman that they choose to read Mr. Murdoch's newspapers and to watch his channels, but that is the way it is. If Mr. Murdoch is interested in money, that is perhaps better than some of those who have used the media solely for the purpose of politics. We can see the evils of that in many countries east of the iron curtain.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about Beaverbrook?

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is right. Beaverbrook frequently used his newspapers for propaganda.
The right hon. Member for Chingford is wrong. He is not very bright or knowledgeable. He talks about the number of new newspapers and The Independent. I remember when there were three evening papers in Glasgow, but now there is only one. Twenty or 30 years ago there were more newspapers. We on the Left know how many newspapers have been lost. The right hon. Member for Chingford boasts about the number of new newspapers. Five people control more than 93 per cent. of the entire daily and Sunday press circulation. Does the right hon. Gentleman call that breadth of choice? Where is the choice between The Sun and the Daily Mirror? No great popular paper is breaking new ground.
Under the Bill, there will be a choice between a series of money-making, pap-producing television programmes. There is nothing wrong with football—it is my favourite sport—but there is something wrong with only football. There is nothing wrong with quiz games and pap, but there is something wrong with only quiz games and pap. The competition under the Bill will not expand people's ideas to gain credit even from a man like the right hon. Member for Chingford—it will seek to maximise its audience. The purpose is not to broadcast minority programmes to 3 million or 4 million people, but to maximise profit. That is what the right hon. Member for Chingford wants to do with this marvellous instrument.
The argument is more serious than the monopoly that I have described. Hitherto, even the monopoly of the press has been balanced because we have had regulated broadcasting. The commercial companies and the BBC have had the duty to inform, entertain and educate and to ensure diversity of opinion and of programmes. Despite all the weaknesses of the press, at least it was balanced by a

broadcasting system which had relative objectivity, breadth and diversity. That will no longer be so. Instead of a balance being achieved by the broadcasting system, it will reinforce the effects of the popular press. Murdoch and Maxwell will be reinforced, not balanced, by their broadcasting systems. That is the menace of cross-media ownership. Even the Government have established a committee to consider certain effects of cross-media ownership. They recognise the problem, but they are taking no means to deal with it.
Why the concentration on Murdoch? Any Member who served on the Committee with me will know that if it had been Maxwell or anyone else I would still be seeking diversity and not a cramping but an opening up of broadcasting. Labour Members see the commercial undertaking as a cramping of quality and censorship. Five people control 93·9 per cent. of the entire daily and Sunday press circulation. Broadcasting is being released to the people who own, have shares in and monopolise it. That is a tremendous danger to human freedoms and liberties. Labour Members are concerned about that, but it does not enter the consciousness of Conservative Members because they equate success and diversity with the making of pap. That is why we are anxious and concerned. To call that a simple vendetta is disgraceful.
I have spoken frequently on this subject in the past two months.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Ad nauseam.

Mr. Buchan: Ad nauseam, indeed.
The problem that we face is dangerous because there is only one final security for our people—that each man's truth can be known and expressed. We have seen the worst expression of censorship in the case of Salman Rushdie. We must say to people that the answer to a book is to write an alternative book, that the answer to a speech is to make an alternative speech, and the answer to a monopoly in broadcasting is to ensure diversity. That will not happen if we allow untrammelled cross-media reinforcement of the attitudes of the providers.
That is why we are opposed to the clause and why we say that it is not to do with the individual but to do with the fact that one group controls more than 35 per cent. of the daily and Sunday press and a plethora of publishing companies. Collins—the main publisher of the Bible, God help us—is also owned by Murdoch. We must take a stand against that huge monopoly on human ideas and expression. I hope that the Labour party will give a pledge that when it is returned to office it will not allow anyone to develop whatever monopoly he likes in television.
We know that the purpose of the amendment was to exclude Murdoch's group—that is why so much of the argument has centred around him—but it would have been the same if it had been someone else. The Government's proposal is dangerous. The limitation of freedom in this country has been increasing when it should have been decreasing.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) because it is fascinating to hear him develop his arguments. His suggestion that newspaper producers should cease to concentrate on making money leads me to suggest that, if they were to do that, they might soon cease to be newspaper producers. That is like suggesting to


politicians that they should not concentrate so much on winning votes because they would be much better people if they did that. I am sure that that argument would not hold much sway among hon. Members on either side of the House.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Coombs: No. I want to make my speech.
I speak as the chairman of the all-party cable and satellite television committee. More importantly, I speak as a viewer of and subscriber to Swindon Cable. I can watch 27 channels if I so choose. Four of those channels are provided by Sky. I am delighted to say that as of a few days ago five channels are provided by BSB. Other channels come from overseas and some are provided by the BBC and by independent television companies. I believe that that is diversity, and that is what the debate should he about. I reject any amendment which in any way offers the possibility of a reduction in that diversity.
I am not violently keen on the idea of restrictions on cross-media ownership. I said that on Second Reading and I repeat it today. I would be far happier if the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission between them could deal with abuse instead of the question of ownership. If this Bill had come from the Department of Trade and Industry rather than from the Home Office, the debate would have gone in that direction instead of towards arbitrary restrictions on ownership. I hope that we can get away from that idea.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission operates by similar yardsticks of ownership. There is a share of market test.

Mr. Coombs: I appreciate that.
We should not be concentrating on ownership which of itself may be neutral or beneficial. However, that is not the point. We should be concerned with what abuse, if any, springs from the ability to control sections of the media.
I do not believe that the additional ownership of four channels out of 27—and some have said that there may be more than 40 in a while—is likely to lead to a reduction in the freedom of choice. If anything, freedom of choice will be increased. Since the introduction of Sky and BSB, my particular loves of watching cricket and listening to classical music have been attended to, one by Sky and the other by BSB. Where is the reduction in standards of quality which many Opposition Members have suggested would be inherent in the introduction of new channels provided either by satellite or by cable?
I want to encourage entrepreneurial investment in this country; I do not want to depress it. Anyone who seriously suggested that we should send a signal to News International that as from today it had a limited lease of life with regard to the ownership of the Sky Television network channels would clearly be off his head. There would be no more investment and that would mean a loss of £2 million a week for Sky Television from the day that that signal left the House. That would occur under the Opposition's proposal to cut off the operation at the knees as of tomorrow or as soon as possible. Similarly it would occur if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for

Slough (Mr. Watts) in his amendment that there should be a period of grace of perhaps two or three years and a limit of 3 million homes were to be accepted.
What does that limit mean? It would mean that more than 20 million homes would not have an opportunity to watch Sky Television. It does not follow automatically that those that could would want to. Where is the interference, domination and control in practice from the figure of 3 million homes? I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough is not in the Chamber to respond to that question, because it is an important and valid one.
I hope that the Government will be firm in resisting the temptation to allow the Labour party to indulge itself in bloody revenge on the owner of News International. That is blatantly what the debate is about for most Opposition Members—although not all—who have spoken in this debate, in Committee and on other occasions. That is clear to me, and I am sure it must be to other Members.
This debate is about competition between owners of the media and competition for readers and viewers of the media. Parliament should be trying to protect the latter and to broaden it to give as much competition as possible for readers and viewers. That should be our priority. If in the process of trying to achieve that we find that abuse is caused by a smaller amount of competition in ownership of the media, we should act decisively to prevent that. Of itself, that ownership is not an evil, and that is why I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. Riddick: I was surprised by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts). I thought that he believed, like me, in choice, diversity and the free market. However, I was not surprised by Opposition Members. Their main motivation seems to be spite. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave the game away when he said that he would never again write for Murdoch's newspapers. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman holds a grudge against Murdoch. The Labour party has been carrying out a vendetta against Murdoch since the Wapping incidents. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) confirmed what Conservative Members had suggested—that amendment No. 110 is motivated simply by spite.
As we all know, the Murdoch stable has been responsible for the newspaper revolution in this country. With News International, Murdoch destroyed the stranglehold that some of Labour's paymasters—the print unions—held over the newspaper industry. Murdoch did away with restrictive practices and ensured that innovation could enter the industry. I believe that Murdoch is responsible for the existence today of newspapers such as The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, Today and The Sunday Correspondent.
Opposition Members have suggested that News International dominates the newspaper market. It has three daily and two Sunday newspapers. It also has 1,500 provincial papers. However, back in the 1970s when the Mirror group had a similar market share to that held by Rupert Murdoch today, the Labour party said nothing about that. It did not complain in 1976 when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a successful member of the then Labour Government. I believe that he was the Minister responsible for prices and incomes when inflation was touching 30 per cent. At that time, the Mirror group had 42 per cent. of the Sunday circulation. Today,


Murdoch has considerably less. Concentration of ownership is no greater today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
I congratulate News International on its massive investment in satellite television. That is private enterprise at its best. Murdoch has shown that he is prepared to take the risks and take massive gambles. I am not convinced of the need for any restrictions on cross-media ownership now that there is such diversity within the newspaper industry and the television business. I understand that 17 television channels are available for British viewers. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to the Pilkington committee in 1962, when there were only two television channels. Things have changed dramatically since then.
The obvious effect of amendment No. 110 would be to force Murdoch to sell, and that would put Sky out of existence. That would mean less diversity and less choice. It has been pointed out that BSB could free itself of the ownership rules if it so wished, but that would mean BSB giving up its exclusive right to the direct satellite broadcasting channels and the consequent advantages.
I believe that BSB enjoys the use of a scarce limited resource that Sky does not have the opportunity to enjoy. There are limitless opportunities for new entrants to Sky's market. Clearly, BSB does not like the competition, and it is unfortunate that it is using underhand tactics to destroy competition. I hope that the House will see through that.
What evidence is there that Murdoch's newspapers are abusing their position and relationship vis-a-vis Sky Television? I have not seen any such evidence. I am a regular reader of The Times and The Sunday Times, and I see no evidence that those newspapers seek to brainwash me. If they do, they have not been very successful, because I do not even own one of those famous dishes that we see springing up all over the place.
If News International abused its ownership of the two media vehicles in some way, the viewers and readers would see through that abuse and register their disapproval in the most effective way possible: they would stop reading the newspapers and watching the television channels that Murdoch own. The key is to ensure that there is sufficient choice and diversity to provide alternative newspapers.
There is an unholy alliance between my hon. Friends who intend to support the amendment—knowingly or unknowingly they will vote for a vested interest—and Opposition Members who will vote for the amendment out of spite for Mr. Murdoch. For all its supposed new-found moderation, the Labour party's position on this issue proves that it is still beholden to its trade union masters. Its motivation is not a desire to improve the Bill but sheer spite and malice.
I wholly oppose this unnecessary, bureaucratic amendment. I am in favour of competition, choice and diversity. In short, I expect my hon. Friends and those who believe in the free market to support it, too.

Mr. Gale: I wish to consider the amendment in the context of the future of the United Kingdom television industry throughout Europe. When we embarked on the Bill, we considered it as a Bill that would take United Kingdom and European television into the 21st century. Early in our debates, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred to the legislation as a

Bill for the early 1990s. Yesterday, in a nice turn of phrase, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that we were backing sideways into the brave new future of television. If we accept the amendments, we shall take British television back into the 1970s and we shall miss out on the future that we could have Europewide.
The Council of Europe convention, to which I referred earlier and on which I received no satisfactory answer to my question, was fought for by both Conservative and Opposition Members in the Council of Europe. The Labour party was as staunch in its support as the Conservative party to secure a free framework for broadcasting throughout Europe. I am not sure that the amendments are acceptable within that convention. The convention and the European Community directive were framed with a view to transfrontier pan-European broadcasting. That is the opportunity that faces the United Kingdom television industry now.
We have an opportunity to make programmes for, not only the 40 million to 50 million people who watch television in Britain but an audience of 400 million to 500 million Europewide. Opportunities will also arise in eastern Europe. That is the prospect on offer. If we vote for the amendments, we shall cut off at the legs the successful embryo United Kingdom television industry before it has had a chance to develop. The amendment is spiteful. It is designed to regulate something the moment that it becomes successful. It criticises success.
We have a tremendous opportunity Europewide, but if we accept the amendments, the developments in satellite television, the jobs involved, even the satellite service that had the courage that no else had to carry the televised proceedings of the House on one of its channels for at least a short period will go overseas. The jobs will not die altogether: they will go to Luxembourg, France or Germany. The satellite television industry, which is complementary to cable and which will feed our cable system, will develop not in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in Europe, as so many other innovations have done. That is what the Labour party seeks to impose on us, and what we must vote against tonight.

Mr. Mellor: Our debate has been conducted with great vigour by both Conservative and Opposition Members. It has been attractively marked by divisions of view on each side. Personally, I believe that Parliament is the better, not the worse, for that.
There is no absolute truth on either side of the argument on this issue. I fully accept that, by resisting the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) spoke with dignity and restraint I shall disappoint several hon. Members and several distin-guished people outside the House. I accept that it is perfectly possible for people of good will to differ on the matter.
I wish to make it clear that, during the passage of the Bill, I have sought to consider each of the major issues as they arose. When I was persuaded that there was a case for change, I made the change where the discretion was vested in me. Where it was not, and where I needed to consult colleagues, I did so. For the most part, my colleagues have been indulgent enough to agree that those changes should be made.
7.45 pm
If I had any doubts on this issue, I should be only too willing to recommend a change. However, nothing that I have heard tonight shakes my conviction that we are right to take the view that we do. I shall not go into detail of the merits of the case, because so many others have put the case eloquently for both sides of the argument. I simply emphasise that, where there is scarce spectrum and where that spectrum is allocated by United Kingdom processors, we have the most rigorous cross-media control. I defend that, because I believe that it is right. For instance, neither Mr. Murdoch nor Mr. Maxwell could have a controlling interest in an ITV franchise. Indeed, they could not have a controlling interest in BSB, which has been granted a monopoly on the five United Kingdom high-power satellite frequencies that are available to us.
As I said earlier, the non-domestic broadcasting by satellite services are different. They are not granted by United Kingdom regulatory bodies. They are carried on a satellite that is not subject to United Kingdom jurisdiction. It is a satellite with a seemingly endless potential for new channels. It is not scarce spectrum. Already there are 16 channels, including one owned by Mr. Maxwell, who would equally well be caught if the amendment were accepted. There could well be 32 channels soon; some people suggest that there could be 48. There is no scarce spectrum.
There is no reason of principle why we should seek to control the ownership of a brave entrepreneurial effort. I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on that subject. We do not know whether that entrepreneurial effort will succeed or fail, but I do not envisage a great queue of people ready to emulate it. Nor will stations consist of wall-to-wall game shows. Plainly, whatever anyone says, Sky News is a serious venture which has nothing to do with pap and everything to do with quality television, as is clear from the nature and quality of the journalists and technicians employed by it, many of whom we all know in other contexts.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: With some exceptions.

Mr. Mellor: Of course, there are exceptions to that rule among both Conservative and Opposition Members, as the Home Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary says.
There is no reason of principle for the amendments. On the practical side, I cannot for the life of me see the advantage of forcing a successful channel to go overseas and putting ourselves in the ludicrous position of having to distort the arrangements in the Bill, which are designed to act against pornographic stations, simply to prevent a newspaper proprietor whom some people dislike from doing a perfectly legitimate job, either as a newspaper proprietor or as a broadcaster.
When we are properly solicitous about the loss of some dozens of jobs in south Wales, we cannot be oblivious to the consequences of losing almost 1,000 jobs, some of them in west London but 250 of them in Scotland, where people are sensitive about jobs. I am consistent about this —I am unhappy about the loss of jobs anywhere. However, I have one consolation. If the ITV system is overmanned, the creation of new broadcasting opportunities should create new opportunities for people within

the industry to work. That is why we must have a diverse broadcasting market and why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
I do not think it right in principle to impose restrictions on the ownership of Sky Television or MTV, Mr. Maxwell's venture, straight away. It would be wrong for the House to arrive at some arbitrary figure at which we allege—we have no basic reason for thinking so—that profitability would be reached. I am far from persuaded that providing such services to 3 million homes means that profitability has been achieved, given the hundreds of millions of pounds that will have been expended in trying to make those ventures a success.
I can legislate only for the period in which the Government have their majority. Who knows what the future may hold? We are principled about this, in the sense that all the ownership restrictions are in a schedule to the Bill and any one of them can be changed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses. If, in five or 10 years' time, a different Government take a different view, it is open to them, through a resolution passed by both Houses, to change the restrictions. I hope that any future Government that sought such change would do so for reasons of principle and not through spite.

Mr. Buchan: Come on.

Mr. Mellor: I am not making any allegations about spite now; all I am saying is that, if the moment came for change, I hope that it would be actuated by principle, not spite. I am at some pains to say that I understand that there is a case on the other side of the argument. Let any change take place as and when it is the view of a Government that that change should be made.
My view is entirely clear: on practical grounds and on grounds of principle it would be wrong to move the goal posts at this point. Although it is perfectly proper that we have had this debate and perfectly proper that the issue has been joined with great vigour, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough feels that he can properly withdraw the amendment so that we can move on to the many other issues that will detain us this evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 322, in page 144, line 19, leave out second 'is' and insert—
'appears to the Commission to be'.

No. 323, in page 144, line 20, leave out 'is' and insert—
'appears to them to be'.

No. 324, in page 144, line 24, at end insert—
'; and, where a person is the holder of a licence to provide such a relevant service, he shall not be a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate which is the holder of such a licence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above or which provides such a service as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.

No. 325, in page 144, line 25, leave out 'In this sub-paragraph' and insert—
'(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)—'.

No. 326, in page 144, line 28, at end insert—
'and a service shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph if the programmes included in the service are at all times the same as those which are for the time being broadcast in a Channel 3 service or on Channel 5.'.

No. 327, in page 144, line 43, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.

No. 328, in page 144, line 51, after 'licence', insert—
'or in two or more such bodies corporate'.

No. 329, in page 145, line 4, at end insert—
'or in two or more such bodies corporate.'.

No. 330, in page 145, line 13, leave out 'to' and insert ',(2), (3) and'.

No. 331, in page 146, line 10, at end insert—

'POWER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION BY PERSONS OTHER THAN LICENCE HOLDERS

9. Where, by virtue of any provision of this Part of this Schedule, any restriction applies in relation to participation in any body or bodies corporate of a particular description, the Secretary of State may by order provide for further restrictions to apply in relation to participation in any such body or bodies corporate, being restrictions which—

(a) are imposed on persons to whom the first-mentioned restriction does not apply, and
(b) are framed by reference to the number of bodies corporate in which such persons are participants.'.

No. 332, in page 146, line 27, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Amendment proposed: No. 110, in page 146, line 35, at end insert
'or
(c) a domestic satellite service or non-domestic satellite service.'.—[Mr. Hattersley]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 275.

Division No. 197]
[7.53 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Blunkett, David
George, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buckley, George J.
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Clay, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Leadbitter, Ted
Prescott, John


Leighton, Ron
Primarolo, Dawn


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rees. Rt Hon Merlyn


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Jo


McAllion, John
Robertson, George


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey


McCrea, Rev William
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Rowlands, Ted


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Salmond, Alex


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Brien, William
Worthington, Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Paisley, Rev Ian



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Tony Banks.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Amos, Alan
Buck. Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Chris


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beggs, Roy
Carrington, Matthew


Beith, A. J.
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Body, Sir Richard
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Colvin, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Conway, Derek


Bowis, John
Coombs. Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Cope, Rt Hon John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cormack, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Couchman, James






Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Latham, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McCrindle, Robert


Evennett, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Favell, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maclennan, Robert


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, David


Franks, Cecil
Malins, Humfrey


Freeman, Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Gow, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Sir David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ground, Patrick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mon)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tredinnick, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Trippier, David


Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wallace, James


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Lewis
Watts, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thorne, Neil
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 333, in page 146, line 39, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.

No. 334, in line 43, after 'extent', insert 'permitted under sub-paragraph (1)'.

No. 335, in line 43, leave out 'sub-paragraph (1)' and insert 'that sub-paragraph'.

No. 336, in page 147, line 8, at end insert—
'(bb) prescribe restrictions on the extent to which the proprietor of a national newspaper may be a participant in a body corporate which is the holder of a licence to provide a relevant service falling within paragraph 1(2)(f) or (3)(b) in Part III of this Schedule, or in two or more such bodies corporate;'.

No. 337, in line 32, leave out 'any' and insert 'a significant'.

No. 338, in line 37, after 'extent', insert 'permitted under the sub-paragraph'.

No. 339, in line 50, at end insert—
'(bb) prescribe restrictions on the extent to which the holder of a licence to provide a relevant service falling within paragraph 1(2)(f) or (3)(b) in Part III of this Schedule may be a participant in a body corporate which runs a national newspaper, or in two or more such bodies corporate;'.

No. 340, in page 148, line 7, leave out from 'in' to end of line 8 and insert
'a body corporate which runs a national or local newspaper, or in two or more such bodies corporate.'.

No. 341, in line 33, at end insert
'or a national public telecommunications operator of any description specified in the order'.

No. 342, in line 42, after 'whole', insert
', or substantially the whole,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 6

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO LICENSED SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 230, in page 6, line 1, at end insert
', by using images of very brief duration or by any other means,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 8

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS

No. 491, in page 7, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion in a licensed service of any party political broadcast which complies with the rules (so far as applicable) made by the Commission for the purposes of section 33.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 11

USE BY COMMISSION OF RECORDINGS ETC. TO MONITOR PROGRAMMES

Amendments made: No. 615, in page 10, line 8, leave out `may include conditions enabling the Commission to require' and insert
`shall include conditions requiring'.

No. 616, in line 13, leave out
`to produce any such recording to the Commission'

and insert
'at the request of the Commission, to produce to them any such recording'.

No. 617, line 15, leave out
`to produce to the Commission'

and insert
'at the request of the Commission, to produce to them'.

No. 618, in line 15, after 'script', insert 'or transcript'

No. 231, in line 17, at end insert—
'(3) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as requiring the Commission, in the discharge of their duties under this Part as respects licensed services and the programmes included in them, to view such programmes in advance of their being included in such services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 12

AUDIENCE RESEARCH

Amendments made: No. 232, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—
'(a)'.

No. 233, in line 20, at end insert—
`(b) any effects of such programmes on the attitudes or behaviour of persons who watch them; and
(c) the types of programme that members of the public would like to be included in licensed services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 14

ESTABLISHMENT OF CHANNEL 3

Amendment proposed: No. 117, in page 11, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) If it appears to the Commission that it would be appropriate for a particular Channel 3 service to do so, they may determine that the service shall include the provision of different programmes—

(a) for such different parts of the area for which it is provided, or
(b) for such different communities living within that area,

as they may determine.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 239 and 118.

8 pm

Mr. Maclennan: It would be churlish to allow this moment to go by without saying how grateful we in Scotland are to the Government for amendment No. 239, which has been tabled in response to a debate we had in

Committee and will ensure that the Scottish channels cannot all be acquired by a single company. I thank the Government.

Mr. Mellor: I am touched by what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said. We have sought to honour that and all the other undertakings that were given, and I am glad that this is a popular move.

Dr. Kim Howells: This group of amendments touches on crucial issues affecting the television service in Wales and provides a valuable opportunity to improve that service. The Broadcasting Bill affects Wales in two major ways. First, it recognises the success of the Welsh fourth channel S4C and goes some way towards securing its continued financial security. It also sets out the future of Channel 3, which includes the franchise area for Wales.
ITV's strength has been its commitment to regional programming, and its regulation by the IBA has been a key factor in maintaining a generally high standard of quality programming. Both the BBC and Channel 3 Wales are catering for a country with particular assets and problems, and should be helped to improve consistently their contacts with the people of Wales in order for local experience to receive the expression that it deserves. Without a genuinely broad menu of local programming, television does not present a valid picture of the area that it serves. The Bill and the amendments prompt us to decide where we stand on the balance between television as a service and as a business.
Wales is a small country and its population, in viewing terms, a minority audience. The interests of the audience in English and Welsh, and of the television industry in Wales, must benefit as much as possible from the legislation. Apart from Northern Ireland, Wales may be the only television region to be served on Channel 3 by a single company. That should oblige the winner of the franchise to be particularly aware of its obligations. If it falls short of the obligations, there will be no other Channel 3 company producing Welsh programming in the English language. The obvious consequences would be grave.
Already the Government have accepted that there should be specific provision for children's religious and regional programming. Further provision should be enshrined in the Bill to ensure that the Channel 3 company in Wales will have a specific duty to produce certain types of programming. I am concerned that the absence of a legal requirement will create loopholes for the unscrupulous to exploit. The ITC is to be allowed to draw up illustrative guidelines, but it is not yet clear how well equipped the commission will be to insist on the standards for which it aims. I fear, too, that without certain quality provision being written into the Bill the general standard of programming on Channel 3 will deteriorate.
The television industry in Wales is a major employer. The Bill should enhance that status and not threaten it. The integrity of Wales as a national region must be preserved. Unlike the position in Scotland, Channel 3 in Wales is represented by a single franchise which coincides with the national boundaries. The Bill does not eliminate the possibility of Wales being divided between two or more non-Welsh franchisees—for example, a company based in Manchester and perhaps another based in London or Bristol. If that happened, indigenous Welsh programming could disappear. Wales should remain a national television


region. That would allow Channel 3 to play a constructive role in Welsh national life and would make broadcasting more responsive to the needs of English-speaking Welsh people while taking its place within a bilingual nation.
In the case of the national region of Wales, a suitable range of programmes should include current affairs, documentaries, drama, adult education, sport, social action, light entertainment, and religious, arts and school programmes. Programmes from each category should be scheduled regularly at main viewing times. At least 75 per cent. of the programmes should be made within the Welsh region. That broad range of programmes is currently being produced in Wales and the legislation must allow for at least such a range. Viewers in Wales deserve to see their local concerns dealt with and their experiences reflected in the television medium. A requirement for a range of regional programmes to be shown within the main viewing hours would encourage the Channel 3 contractor to produce programmes of quality. Without such a requirement, regional programmes could be ghetto-ised to the least accessible viewing times. Unless 75 per cent. of local programming is made within Wales, I believe that there will be a significant drop in employment and in the quality of the television industry in Wales.
To sustain such a capability, a full regional production and managerial presence should be mandatory in each Channel 3 region, and particularly in national regions such as Wales. I fear that that issue has been overlooked in the Bill. It is vital that the managerial staff demonstrate a commitment to and a knowledge of Wales and of Welsh culture and issues. There are fears that, without protection, English or European owners of Channel 3 Wales would not appreciate or develop the channel's role as a monolingual service within a bilingual society.
In the event of a company applying for a Channel 3 franchise as a publisher-contractor, it is imperative that such an applicant should demonstrate that that method of contracting will not diminish the quality of the service provided. If a contractor has an integrated programme and production set-up, the monitoring of the output at every stage—from concept through production to transmission—is relatively easy, but the method of operation of a publisher-contractor requires careful scrutiny. The company should demonstrate adequate commissioning and quality control systems, as well as a commitment to commissioning the majority of its output in Wales.
8.15 pm
I am also concerned that without a requirement for training within the ITV sector in Wales there will be an inadequate, ad hoc system. all the more damaging if the industry becomes either wholly or predominantly based on freelance workers, however excellent many of the productions in which they have been involved.
Channel 3 franchise holders are to operate a full network arrangement, but there should also be a transitional network arrangement during the bidding process. Such a networking arrangement would enable companies to have access to a range of quality programming far in excess of the programmes which it could acquire alone. Inevitably, the companies with a smaller local output—of which the Welsh contractor will be one—would be the most seriously affected by the absence of such an arrangement.
Nationwide showing of local material aids communication within Britain. Without such an arrangement, the

concerns of regions such as Wales would be further isolated. The network commissioning body should be required to take a considerably greater number of programmes from regional companies than at present, if the regional companies wish to offer them. It is important for quality programmes made in Wales to be seen in the rest of Britain.
I believe also that the initial contractor will require a period of stability in which to establish itself and to deliver the promised programme service. The ITC must be empowered to scrutinise all companies taking over licence holders. Otherwise, the quality threshold and other guidelines will be invalidated. In other words, there should be a moratorium of a minimum of three years on takeovers in the period immediately after the franchises are awarded.
As well as accepting the framework that I have outlined for Channel 3 Wales, I urge the Minister to ensure that the Home Office will continue to offer S4C a safety net, should advertising revenue drop to such an extent that the 3·2 per cent. share of the net advertising revenue is insufficient for S4C to continue its current programming. As I am sure the Minister knows, S4C fulfils a unique cultural and national remit. Since its inception, a large and thriving independent television sector has developed in Wales, providing S4C with approximately 380 hours of viewing per year—soon to increase to more than 500 hours. Its existence is affected directly by S4C's funding. To strengthen its position, I press the Minister to ensure that cable operators are required to carry public service channels and S4C on all distribution systems in Wales. Without that requirement, viewers in some areas would be deprived of their only Welsh language channel.

Mr. Ted Rowlandss: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). It was a portmanteau of a speech, covering the gamut of issues raised in Committee and on Report. I want to argue the case which we started making in Committee. The development of S4C has produced successful and flourishing Welsh language programmes, but it is important that there are opportunities for what we describe, in inverted commas, as Anglo-Welsh writers and productions. That is the most important lesson that we have learned from S4C. Talent exists and can be developed not only in Welsh but also in Anglo-Welsh.
I should like to explain what we mean when we talk about the Anglo-Welsh language. In our different ways, we speak it ourselves. It contains the sounds, the rhythms, the tones, the experiences and the history not only of the Welsh-speaking communities in our Principality but of the Anglo-Welsh-speaking community. They are different.
Dylan Thomas is one of our most underrated poets. He wrote Anglo-Welsh poetry and combined Welsh and English in the sounds and rhythms. I shall quote to the House a typical example of his poetry:
It was my thirtieth year to heaven

Woke to my hearing from harbour and neighbour wood
And the mussel pooled and the heron priested shore
The morning beckon. …
And I rose
In the rainy autumn
And walked abroad in a shower of all my days …
And I saw in the turning so clearly a child's
Forgotten mornings when he walked with his mother
Through the parables of sunlight and the legends of the green chapels. …."
That could not have been written by an Englishman but only by an Anglo-Welshman.
We are continuing in this debate the case that we started to make in Committee. We want to see in the broadcasting system which, hopefully, the Bill will create a combination of arrangements and opportunities that will allow the expression of poets, writers and social commentators. That will produce a distinctive experience that is different from that produced solely by English or Welsh speakers. It will be an Anglo-Welsh culture of its own, but part and parcel of the total culture of our society.
We are worried that, in the process of organising the broadcasting arrangements, this major dimension will not be effectively catered for. There are a number of ways in which we can cater for it, and the Government amendments provide the opportunity to do so. It can be done through the new broadcasting opportunities. It may be done by cable television, but we know how limited that will be in the Principality. In yesterday's debate, the Minister responded to the possibility of the variations that could occur on Channel 5. We might be able to take that opportunity.
We have to rest our case on the broadcasting facilities in the next decade. That will be done through BBC Wales and the commercial station HTV or its successor. That combination of existing broadcasting facilities should create a stream of Anglo-Welsh writing, broadcasting and productions in the character of Wales. That is what S4C has done. One of the most potent ways in which we can do that is by getting a greater share of the network arrangements for HTV or its successor company for the Principality plus the west.
I do not believe in breaking up the Wales-Television South-West combination, because it makes up a successful, large company. It has dual management, and dual control of the whole show will produce a major shift in the balance of networking and will create extra opportunities for a Welsh national Wales and the south-west commercial company that will produce programmes and give opportunities to many talented people in the Principality. That channel would speak not only to us but would enable us to reach a greater audience. It is a two-way flow that could be improved by a major shift in the networking arrangements.
It is extremely important to send a message from the House to HTV, BBC Wales and any other company that, in the new decade of the 1990s, we expect them to develop and promote the enormous talent that exists in the communities that we represent. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd whose passionate speech I welcome and support.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I am powerfully reminded, when listening to my two colleagues, the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), of arguments that go back over 30 years in Wales. The arguments for a fourth channel in Wales, especially in the early 1970s, were for a channel that would be additional to the others throughout the United Kingdom. That campaign went on for a decade in Wales and it was overtaken by a campaign in the rest of the United Kingdom for a very different sort of fourth channel.
Unfortunately, when the channel was given to Wales the deprivation argument continued, because that fourth channel gave Wales a great advantage—for the

non-Welsh-speaking Welshman—a channel that did not have Welsh language programmes. That meant that such people were not deprived of English programmes that were available elsewhere.
The fourth channel also gave rise to a flowering of the Welsh language. Bringing the fourth channel in nationally gave rise to a new deprivation argument, because Wales is missing in the scheduling of other channels on the United Kingdom Channel 4. That argument was rehearsed in Committee and yesterday in the House. The need in Wales is for one channel more than exists throughout the United Kingdom.
I warmed to the speeches of those who have the cadences of the Welsh language in their voices. I do not have those cadences. They come from an area of Wales where the Welsh language was recently very much alive, and the stamp and shadow of the language is in their speech. There is an energy and distinctiveness in the valley culture and Welsh culture.
I do not like the expression "Anglo-Welsh" because it is difficult to know what it means. There is certainly not an Anglo-Welsh language. Some Welshmen speak English with a great deal of clarity and force, and English is spoken rather better in the valleys of south Wales than it is spoken elsewhere.
The Welsh language is a great treasure. By any standard of European minority languages it should have died out at least 200 years ago, but we have seen the continuing miracle of its survival. People in Wales see our proceedings on television, see the strange spectacle of the programme being introduced in Welsh and hear Welsh language discussions. However, every word spoken in the House is in English, even though many hon. Members speak Welsh. If I spoke Welsh now and said, Os 'rydw i'n troi at y Gymraeg, bydd y Llefarydd yn ddweud 'dwdw i'n ddim mewn drefn y tŷ; os 'rwyn parhau i siarad yn y Gymraeg, bydd y Llefarydd yn fy nhorri allan o'r tŷ, and continued to speak in Welsh, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, because in the House the Welsh language has the same status as riotous behaviour.
This is the only Parliament that Wales has, and it is a shame that only one of the two beautiful languages spoken in Wales is allowed to be heard here. Perhaps the day will come when we shall see an end to that. In some Parliaments, a dozen languages are spoken, and I am sure that on some occasions we could manage to deal with two.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Pontypridd. There is a vibrant and lively life in English and Welsh in Wales; both need wider audiences and the opportunity of full expression on radio and television.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 239, in page 11, line 30, at end insert 'or the whole of Scotland'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 15

APPLICATIONS FOR CHANNEL 3 LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 118, in page 11, line 38, at end insert—
'(ii) if the service is to include the provision of such programmes as are mentioned in section 14(2A), the different parts of that area, or (as the case may be) the different communities living within it, for which such programmes are to be provided,'.

No. 240, in page 11, line 45, after 'licence', insert
'and specifying the closing date for such applications'.

Amendment No. 49, in page 12, leave out lines 4 and 5.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 653, in page 12, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The Commission shall, when publishing a notice under subsection (1), publish with the notice general guidance to applicants for the licence in question which contains examples of the kinds of programme whose inclusion in the service proposed by any such applicant under subsection (3)(b) would be likely to result in a finding by the Commission that the service would comply with the requirements specified in section 16(2) or (3) (as the case may be).'.
The amendment replaces subsection (2), and makes points of clarification. We want to make it clear that the illustrative guidelines are a key part of the information that the ITC will give to prospective applicants, and that they should contain examples of the type of programme they would expect to see. However, that falls short of a specification of what should be in the applications, as obviously we are not giving the ITC the scheduling powers of the IBA. I expect the IBA to make clear a point that I regularly endorse: that when weighing up an application it would expect to see the range of programming now on Channel 3, and that any applicant that fell short of producing that range could not be guaranteed to surmount the quality threshold. However, there is a line to be drawn between giving clear illustrations of the type of application that is likely to succeed, and requiring certain programme types. It is important to maintain that distinction—hence the redraft in the amendment.

Mr. Darling: I welcome the amendment, not because it meets what the Opposition were asking for in Committee but because it is beginning to move towards meeting it. The Government recognise that it will be necessary to specify the range of programmes that an applicant for a licence will be expected to provide. The Minister knows our position. We have felt all along that quality is the most important consideration and that price—although an important consideration—comes second.
The Opposition would have preferred applicants to be required to provide a range of programmes to cater for all tastes and interests. It is welcome that there has been some movement, especially on religious broadcasting and children's programmes. However, we wanted to see that further specification inserted into the Bill. I understand that the Government cannot do that as it would undermine the basic philosophy outlined in the White Paper and on Second Reading, but the amendment goes some way to meeting the objections that were raised by Opposition Members in Committee. At least now the ITC can set out from the start the type of programmes, and the range of programmes, that it wants. Applicants will therefore be in no doubt about what they are expected to do.
However, if the ITC sets out that range and an applicant still submits an application that does not meet the suggested guidelines—and none of the applicants do —does that mean that the suggestions made by the ITC fall by the wayside, or would it be entitled to say to all the applicants that none of them has met those indicative guidelines, and therefore it will re-advertise and invite people to re-tender for the franchise? If the latter is the case I would be happy, but I would be concerned if the former

was the case and applicants were entitled to take notice of the guidelines but were not required to do anything about it.

Mr. Mellor: That is a pertinent point. The ITC is entitled to a view about the quality that it is looking for as a minimum before it would be prepared for any applicant to receive a franchise. If it took the view that all the applicants were found wanting, it would be entitled to reject them all. The grounds on which it could do so are a matter for the ITC, but one of the grounds might be that a sufficient width of programming had not been produced. That would relate not so much to the illustrative guidelines, but to the statutory basis for them, which is not just the amendment, but the requirement for programmes that cater for a wide range of tastes and interests, which has been in the Bill from the outset. If it felt that, tested against the sensible model in its mind, nobody had reached a level where it could confidently say that the matter had been fully and properly addressed, it would be entitled to reject everyone. I hope that that will not arise, but that is the implication of a quality fence: one does not lower the fence so that someone can hop over it.

Mr. Darling: I am sure that what the Minister has said will be welcomed. It means that the Government have moved in a way that is welcome to the Opposition and many outside the House who are following these proceedings. I regard the amendment as significant. That is one reason why I felt that it should not go by on the nod. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it.
The Opposition have made it clear how we would have proceeded, but that does not detract from the fact that the amendment will be welcomed. I hope that having raised the fence, the ITC will also write in provisions that correspond to the general guidance when framing the licence terms. At the end of the day, the test will be what the ITC does should a franchise holder fail to live up to expectations. I hope that the ITC, when it draws up the licences, will bear that in mind.

Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the amendment as it reflects accurately what I said in Committee. It is of considerable significance, which is why it is appropriate to be debated on its own. It bears considerable weight, for although it will not enable the ITC to issue specifications it can give a considerable steer. The Minister has said that it will go considerably beyond dealing with matters of programme content.
The Minister said in last night's debate that guidelines might be a way of eliciting from applicant companies their attitude to such matters as training and networking, and whether or not they intended to invest heavily in programme production within a region. This broadly drafted amendment is one of the most significant Government amendments, and should be welcomed.
The Minister was right to make specifications in respect of religious broadcasting, children's broadcasting, and educational broadcasting. However, there are clear limits to the specifying of particular types of programme that are required of Channel 3 companies, including some specifications that necessarily appear to exclude others. Through the medium of those guidelines, we can hope that the ITC will ensure that quality considerations are very much in the minds of those applying for franchises. That will allow the diversity that we hope the new Channel 3 will. offer.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'and the deposit'.

No. 52, in line 19, leave out 'and (ii)'.

No. 244, in line 22, at end insert—
'(ba) the applicant's proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed by him in order to help fit them for employment in, or in connection with, the making of programmes to be included in his proposed service;
(bb) if the application is for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, a statement by the applicant as to whether, and (if so) to what extent, he proposes that any offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area for which that service would be provided;'.

No. 245, leave out lines 29 to 34.

No. 246, in line 35, after 'such', insert 'other'.

No. 247, in line 36, leave out
'in accordance with the provisions of this Part'.

No. 248, in page 12, line 40, leave out 'subsection (3)(b), (d) or (e)' and insert
'any of paragraphs (b) to (bb), (d) and (e) of subsection (3)'.—[Mr. Mellor).

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 485, in page 12, line 43, at end insert—
'(5A) Where a person tenders an application for a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service at a time when

(i) the same person is an applicant for another such licence and has accordingly paid a deposit which is held by the Commission under this section, or
(ii) the same person tenders an application for another such licence,

the Commission shall reject each such application and shall return to him anything he tendered to accompany it under subsection (3)(a)-(e); and the notice published under subsection (9) shall, in relation to each such tender, state that the Commission received a tender of application by that person and under this subsection declined to accept it.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5B), the following persons shall be treated as the same person as another person, namely:

(a) a person who controls that other person,
(b) a person who is an associate of that other person or of a person falling within paragraph (a); and
(c) a body which is controlled by that person or by such an associate of that person.

(5C) In subsection (5B) "associate" and "control" have the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 486, in page 13, line 23, at end insert
'save in the case of an application which the Commission has rejected under subsection (5A)'.

Mr. Steen: The amendments concern multiple bidding and the ownership of more than one franchise. This is an issue of principle, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate. It is that one television company should not be able to own or control more than one franchise.
I immediately declare an interest in Television South West, my local station—the only television company to have stated publicly not only that it believes that one television company should be enough, but that it will not bid for more than one franchise. It believes, as the Government believe, that there is a need to preserve

regionalism and genuine regional channels which reflect the life of the area. TSW believes that those who work in a television channel and those who are involved in this powerful medium should be living and working in, and committed to, the area. I am glad to say that that has been the policy of TSW. All its producers and directors live and work in the region. It would like to see the Government committed to that principle. It believes that the Government, far from under-valuing it, should emphasise that commitment. The principal reason why TSW is so passionately against multiple ownership is its belief that that would dilute the regional commitment.
One regional station should be enough for anyone. This is a powerful medium, but it is more important than that. One could imagine what would happen if a rural regional station were taken over by a metropolitan station. There would be economies of scale. The metropolitan station might want to centralise such things as bookkeeping and the administration, but it could have a much more devastating effect. The first thing that would probably go would be the local flavour and local emphasis.
I have never been a particularly keen gardener, but I enjoy the nice little gardening programme broadcast in my region, in which Terry Underhill takes viewers round some of the finest gardens in the south-west. I am sure that all my hon. Friends would be delighted to see this programme. It is full of the kind of local flavour that one would want and it is about local soils and regional winds —factors about which the people in metropolitan regions will not have a clue. People living in the west country would immediately identify with such programmes. If a large metropolitan station took over my regional company, programmes such as that gardening programme would go immediately and we should end up with an urban gardening programme or one that took viewers around the country but did not concentrate on the delightful gardens with which everyone in the south-west immediately identifies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and I are both worried about how far the Government are compromising their position by allowing more than one television company. The walrus and the carpenter were upset about the oysters and cried desperately for them while eating them. One wonders whether the commitment to regional television is not rather similar. The query over the Government's commitment to regionalism can be emphasised by an analogy with the Government's policy on schools. They want more parents to be involved with and running schools and they want to give schools greater local autonomy—decentralisation rather than centralisation—but if two franchises can go to one company, one could end up with more centralisation than decentralisation. When the IBA originally granted licences, it compelled all television companies to float a single class of shares. After 10 years, TSW can boast that 30 per cent. of its shares are held by people who live or work locally.
The amendment is aimed at making television companies more like Members of Parliament. All of us have constituency interests in which we passionately believe, for which we passionately fight, and which we want to protect. If each television company has only one franchise, it will fight passionately for its region. As soon as the company extends to two large regions, that passionate commitment to each region will disappear.
8.45 pm
The Government have gone to some lengths to curtail media power and ownership—that is interventionism of a kind—but I should like the Government to say something today about curbing too much power going to one company. One company could control two franchises that covered 20 million or 25 million people—about a third of the population—if it had both the London franchise and a rural franchise. Furthermore, any company or individual in the Common Market can buy into our companies, although we cannot buy into Greek, Spanish or German companies. Foreign companies could thus buy huge stakes in our television companies and control the programmes seen by a third of the population.
The amendment is also aimed at teasing out of the Government some reduction of the power of media companies to control more than one franchise. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, when he has heard speeches in support of the amendment, will realise that this is an important matter which has perhaps slipped through the discussions in Committee. I am glad of an opportunity to air it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is wrong on only one point. The matter did not slip through in Committee. It was debated at great length and I moved amendments similar to the amendments before us now, which I support for broadly the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman.
Among television companies, there is some division of opinion about the virtues of this approach. There is no doubt that some of them are potential predators and would like to acquire small companies. They have used what they call the "penny farthing" argument about this —that in the more competitive world of television in which we are moving some small regions may find it more difficult to sustain themselves. I would rather amend the law subsequently if that proved to be the case than make the kind of provision that the Bill does, which will allow the takeover of regional broadcasting companies by other, perhaps metropolitan, companies which by definition cannot establish their headquarters in a smaller and more vulnerable region. They will find it easier to centralise and make economies of scale in production by concentrating their activities in one region.
The possibility of one region being taken over by another undermines the genuine regional commitment in the Bill. This is clearly not an oversight by the Government, because the arguments were strongly canvassed before. It is agreeable to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he has drummed up the troops tonight so that we can give his proposals massive support. We were rather more lonely in Committee.

Miss Emma Nicholson: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned the walrus and the carpenter. I think that it is a slightly fishier story than that. It is rather like Jonah and the whale. I do not want the whale to swallow Jonah and then find that we have to amend the law when the whale refuses to spit him out.
We have Television South West—I can demonstrate equal partisanship to that of other western area Members —but an even smaller station is Border Television, and we all know what valuable programmes Border Television presents. I am fearful that, if Thames Television, a station

in the midlands or one in Italy makes successful bids for our small stations, the local flavour that we all love will evaporate. It is difficult to foresee how a fishing programme could be presented if the company that had a major stake in the station, or owned it, was based in Saudi Arabia.
The same applies to gardening, sailing and even the inter-pub competitive games, which I suspect hinge mostly on beer consumption. Local political programmes are close to the heart of every right hon. and hon. Member. The distinctive local flavour that they offer gives us considerably more air time that we would otherwise have. Now that cross-subsidies are to continue—that surely must have been at the back of the proposed new arrangements—is there any real reason to offer the ownership of more than one television station? I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to ponder again.

Mr. Darling: The arguments that have been advanced this evening were rehearsed in Committee. I do not intend to add to them, save to say that the Opposition support the amendments of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). The Minister has not answered satisfactorily the question about when the Independent Television Commission finds that one person is bidding for two franchises. At some stage, it will surely have to decide which bid will be favoured. I can understand that an applicant might end up winning both franchises, and that would seem to undermine the regional and almost federal structure that we are trying to establish. I say that as someone who lives in an area served by one of the smaller companies, although quite a large one. I know that people who live in the area would be disappointed and upset if they discovered that it was owned by a powerful conglomerate, for example.
As the hon. Member for South Hams said, when he referred to a gardening programme, the dilution of the regional element would be apparent if there were a communal metropolitan garden somewhere in London SW1 and different backdrops were used to make it appear that the garden was in Cornwall at one moment and in the highlands and islands of Scotland in another.
The arguments have been well made, and they do not need to be laboured. I do not expect that the Government will accept the amendment, and if it is not pressed to a Division, the issue will not be resolved tonight. I hope, however, that those in another place will give it some attention. If not, I fear that we shall find the concentration of ownership that we discussed earlier this evening creeping insidiously throughout the ITV system. If that happens, we shall end up with another national station, or perhaps one owned by two main players, rather than a regional or federal structure. That would be undesirable for broadcasting.

Mr. Mellor: The final remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) do not coincide with our vision. Indeed, the Bill specifically precludes what he fears. We are committed to the regional basis of the ITV system. I hope, believe and expect that the Independent Television Commission will, as George Russell has suggested, advertise for applicants to take up franchises as based on the present map. I hope and believe that that will be the shape of the system.
It has been my pleasure throughout the consideration of the Bill to make it clear that my convictions in favour


of the regional base are more than rhetorical. Indeed, we have substantially strengthened the regional requirements during the Bill's progress through the House. Those who considered the Bill in Committee know that only too well. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have contributed to that progress.
We play by the rules. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that no non-European company can own an ITV franchise. I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue when she suggested otherwise. My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill.

Miss Emma Nicholson: That was a joke.

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry: perhaps my ability to see jokes is letting me down at this time of night.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, only European countries can own a franchise. We cannot exclude other European countries, because of the EC rules. They would, however, have to satisfy rigorous regional requirements. I am happy to repeat that if, for example, we are talking about the franchise for Wales and the west country, it might be easier to satisfy the regional requirement if one comes from south Wales rather than the south of Italy. If that were the position, I would not be unhappy about it.

Mr. Steen: Am I right in saying that it is a one-way system? The Europeans can invest in this country, but we cannot invest in their television channels.

Mr. Mellor: I do not accept that. As is usually the position in Europe, the rules are different in each country. I accept that there are some bad examples. As a Minister in a responsible Government, I cannot recommend any arrangements that go contrary to the rules of Europe. I appreciate that other Governments operate on different bases. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others become somewhat angry at the cant and hypocrisy at some European gatherings, when people rhetorically commit themselves to certain policies without having the slightest intention of ever putting them into effect.
We can only be honourable. We have to create a level playing field. It is idle to pretend that it will be easy for anyone without strong regional links and a regional base to be a credible and successful candidate. If that is the position, I think that we have done a good job. We are entitled to insist on a regional and national flavour to our broadcasting that is genuine.
We have always felt that the ITV system has not benefited from the absence of active competition for many of the franchises. There was hardly any competition during the last franchise round. We want to encourage as many credible companies as possible to apply for Channel 3 licences. That is why we believe as strongly as ever in the concept of multiple bidding. Ownership concentration rules are firm. The maximum that someone will be allowed to own is one large and one small franchise that are not contiguous. If they were contiguous, the regional character would be undermined.
The only exception would be if a franchise, for whatever reason, became unviable. We cannot guarantee that that will not happen, because the financial viability of some parts of the system is extremely fragile. A

commercial television system stands or falls by its ability to be commercial. Even if we have a number of penny farthings, the small franchise has to be run as an entity that by itself complies with all the rules on regionality. That is why I see no threat to the system.
My hon. Friends the Members for South Hams and for Torridge and Devon, West have spoken with great sincerity. I warmly approve of what they have said. Nothing that the Government are doing is inconsistent with the maintenance of the programmes that my hon. Friends value, as do I. There are good people in the ITV system who sincerely believe that there are currently too many franchises. Leslie Hill of Central Television says that there should be six or seven.
I take the view that we should start from where we find ourselves. I should be happy if, in 10 or 20 years, there were still 15 franchises. The Bill must take account of the fact that that might not be the case—but it must do so in a way that ensures that the regional base is maintained. Never has the regional base of the ITV system been more firmly enshrined in the statute than it is now as a result of the work that we have done on this Bill.

Mr. Steen: We are always convinced by my hon. and learned Friend's arguments. In view of his strong commitment to regionalism, it would not be appropriate to push the amendment to a vote—even though, on this occasion, he did not entirely convince me of his case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 249, in page 12, line 44, leave out subsections (6) to (8).

No. 250, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'shall' to `publish' in line 19 and insert—
`, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications,'.

No. 251, in page 13, line 22, leave out 'and'.

No. 252, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—
`; and

(c) such other information connected with his application as the Commission consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 253, in page 13, line 26, after 'amount', insert 'of money'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following mendments:

Government amendments Nos. 18 to 21.

Amendment No. 354, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, leave out 'exceptional'.

Government amendment No. 22.

Government amendment No. 654, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
`(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as. exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to the Commission—

(a) that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant is exceptionally high; and
(b) that the quality of that proposed service is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed—

(i) by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or
(ii) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids;



and where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 654, in line 4, leave out from 'Commission' to end and add
'that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant—

(a) (i) is exceptionally high having regard to the quality of the services proposed-

(A) by all of the other applicants, or
(B) in all the other applications which have been made for Channel 3 licences,

and in either case is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids; or
(ii) is to an exceptional degree higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids; and in either case
(b) is higher than the quality of the services proposed by all of the other applicants who have submitted bids not lower than his;'.

Amendment No. 355, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
'(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) the Commission may regard the following circumstances as appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely, where it appears to the Commission that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant—

(a) is higher than the quality of the service proposed —

(i) by the applicant who submitted the highest bid, or
(ii) in a case falling within subsection (2) by each of the applicants who submitted equal highest cash bids;
and where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances for the purpose of (3) above may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'.

Amendment No. 704, in clause 17, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
'(3A) Where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences, and, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as for the purpose of that subsection exceptional, namely where it appears to them that-

(a) the service proposed by an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid is exceptionally qualified, and
(b) the bid submitted by that applicant is higher than the bid submitted by any other applicant whose proposed service is exceptionally qualified.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the service proposed by an applicant is exceptionally qualified if it appears to the Commission that the quality of that service—

(a) is exceptionally high having regard to the quality of the services proposed by all of the other applicants;
(b) is exceptionally high having regard to the quality of the services proposed in all the other applications which have been made for Channel 3 licences; or
(c) is to an exceptional degree higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or in a case falling within

subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids.'.

Government amendments Nos. 24 to 34, 371, 135 and 159 to 163.

Amendment No. 206, in clause 70, page 54, line 41, leave out 'other than one who' and insert 'who has not'.

Government amendment No. 164.

Government amendment No. 208, in clause 70, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
'(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to the Commission that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant—

(a) is exceptionally high having regard to—

(i) the extent of coverage of the area for which the service is to be provided, and
(ii) the timetable in accordance with which that coverage is to be achieved,

proposed by all of the other applicants; and
(b) is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed—

(i) by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or
(ii) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids;

and, where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3) above, those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'

Government amendments Nos. 165, 166 and 168 to 176.

Amendment No. 215, in clause 70, page 56, line 1, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.

Government amendment No. 439.

Amendment No. 592, in clause 94, page 71, line 40, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert
'The Authority shall disregard the size of the cash bid in allocating the license if they consider that an applicant offering a lower bid, nevertheless offers a higher quality service more likely to meet the specific remit of the particular service and increase the diversity of available services.'.

Government amendments Nos. 442 to 445.

Amendment No. 5, in clause 94, page 71, line 47, leave out from 'that' to end of line 48 and insert
'that applicant would provide a service of substantially higher quality than that proposed by the applicant who submitted the highest bid'.

Government amendments Nos. 446 and 447.

Amendment No. 593, in clause 94, page 72, line 2, leave out 'submitted the highest bid' and insert
'they would otherwise award the license to.'.

Government amendments Nos. 448 to 451, 734 and 470.

9 pm

Mr. Mellor: In the midst of this massive list of amendments lurks amendment No. 654, which to many hon. Members is the most significant amendment. It is a second attempt—[Interruption.] Perhaps it is the second most significant. We must have a raffle to decide the most significant. I hope that the amendment will be regarded by hon. Members as a genuine and successful attempt to honour our pledge to make it absolutely clear that the ITC can invoke the exceptional circumstances provision in


clause 17(3) if the quality of service offered by an applicant is exceptionally higher than that offered by the highest bidder.
For many of us—and that includes me—one of the key points of the Bill has been to ensure the proper relationship between quality and price. I hope and believe that after a great deal of work, which has involved many hon. Members who are present tonight and a number of interest groups with which we have had regular meetings, we have established a substantial quality threshold over which only a good horse can jump. If those that clear the obstacle are much of a muchness—as George Russell thinks that for the most part they will be—a necessary openness is brought to the system by the competitive tender arrangement under which the highest cash bidder wins. However, we must accept that there will be other circumstances in which one of those who surmounts the quality hurdle does so with such elan and is so manifestly better that it would be perverse to permit that application to be defeated because he put in a lower cash bid.
I have always believed that the Bill made provision for the under-bidder in those circumstances to be preferred, but it is a great joy to say that, if there was a crooked way, we have straightened it out. However, the parliamentary draftsman—it is not a policy decision by the Government —believes that we clarify the point better by establishing a double test. It is not an attempt to be clever. First, the applicant must be exceptionally good. The ITC can judge that against the others in the race, if there are a number of other applicants. However, to avoid any unfortunate consequences if there was only one other applicant, the first limb of the test might not be applicable. We discovered that flaw in our first attenpt to get things right. We have therefore removed the bid. I defend that as part of the constant quest for perfection in which we are engaged, although regularly we fall short of that. Therefore, the ITC will first have to determine whether the applicant is exceptionally good. Secondly, if that is determined and if the applicant is an under-bidder, the ITC will have to determine whether he is substantially better than the applicant who put in the highest cash bid.
That is a logical way to do it. It will ensure that the best will always win through if it is clearly and obviously the best on quality. I believe that that is what all hon. Members want—

Mr. John Greenway: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mellor: Even though only one hon. Member has loyally said, "Hear, hear", I shall persist in my belief that that is what the House wants. At least, that is what it is going to get.
I have discussed the issue exhaustively with colleagues here and with other groups. I have made no secret of the fact that I have had particular assistance from the Campaign for Quality Television, and I am glad that it is happy with the amendment because it has had an important impact on the debate. As it represents successful programme makers, I have listened without hesitation to a lot of what it has said, and I have made it clear that those who apply for franchises will have to have regard for the ITC's injuctions in the illustrative guide about what the diversity requirement should mean in practice. I endorse what George Russell has been saying about that.
I hope that, as a consequence of what we have done, the Opposition will feel able to accept that this is a successful outcome for which they are entitled to claim their share of credit because we all contributed to it. It is not pious words when I say that my ability to understand a number of points with clarity was greatly assisted by contributions made in Committee.
I appreciate that there is always a temptation to say that the Bill does not go far enough—that most tedious of political pronouncements which hon. Members regularly use to get off the hook. I say, with genuine respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that I hope that he will not do that. While I can see the attractions, in theory, in not requiring someone to be exceptional and just saying that he has to be substantially better, there is a danger that if one does not start from the assumption that someone is exceptional one reverts to the dubious science of making distinctions between one set of proposals and another, where the situation is not clear cut and where one applies subjective rather than objective criteria.
I would always prefer the applicant who wants to put on classical music. I would probably not be so keen on an applicant who wanted to broadcast a lot of snooker. That is just me. I accept that most people would rather watch snooker and not have classical music. I gave an example in Committee about radio and preferring Lord Hanson's easy listening station to some classical station. Perhaps that was the right decision. It is difficult to see how the quality of one can be judged against another. It is an art and not a science.
I hope that it will be viewed as a joint achievement by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that we have got to this amendment. It is clear from its drafting that each individual franchise race can be considered separately. There is no question of having to rule out certain exceptional applicants because there cannot be that many exceptional applicants—each race can be considered separately. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. John Greenway: We are well into the second day on Report. Unlike some of my colleagues, I have not until now paid tribute to the excellent work of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the way that he handled the Bill in Committee. I deliberately waited until this brief debate because the House and the country owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he has listened and responded to concerns about this issue. He knows as well as I that many hon. Members have spent a lot of time in different forums talking to the television industry over the past couple of years about its concerns for the future. He also knows that many people doubted his ability to deliver on this amendment.
I am sure that Opposition Members would agree that during the debate in Committee on the subject there was doubt in their minds as to whether he would be able to come back on Report with an amendment which attempted to define exceptional quality and to deal with the circumstance that he has just outlined. Against that background, the House has to pay a warm tribute to him For having fulfilled his promise.
He admitted that amendment No. 654 is the Government's second attempt to get the wording right. I am sure that he will accept amendment (a) to amendment No. 654 and amendment No. 754 which stand in my name


as further suggestions as to what might be the best wording to achieve the principles that we all want to achieve—that if a bidder offered exceptional quality but not the highest cash bid the ITC would be able to award the franchise to the highest bidder without fear of judicial review.
When the Home Affairs Select Committee considered the future of independent television, as we are now to call Channel 3, we recommended that there should be a tendering process for Channel 3 licences. But when we made that recommendation—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will support me in this—we felt that cash should be a determinant in the franchise allocation, but that it should not be the only one and that quality should also be given a fair chance. The principle that quality and cash should each play an important role is clearly established in the amendments. However, by the same token the Home Affairs Committee wanted to achieve a greater degree of openness and transparency in the way in which the franchises were allocated. The trick of the entire process is to strike the right balance between giving quality a fair chance and making sure that the franchises are awarded on a more transparent basis.
My only remaining concern about amendment No. 654, and the reason why I have tabled two alternatives, is that, while the principle is agreed, there may be two exceptionally high bidders. If two proposals are similarly excellent, who will win? I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend recognises that this is not the last time that Parliament will consider the matter and that he will examine the wordings in the same spirit that he has adopted throughout the Committee and subsequently and will continue to consult legal experts and various television interests to ensure that we get the wording right.
A transparent tendering process that clearly establishes what a bidder must do to win a licence is extremely desirable, whether by virtue of a high cash bid or exceptional quality. The Government's amendment is admirable and welcome so far as the principle is concerned but there must be no ambiguity in this vital matter. I certainly want the issue to be settled without deviating from the principles that my hon. and learned Friend has already laid down in his brief speech in this short debate. I suggest that he looks at the wording of the amendment to ensure that, in the event of a tie between two or more exceptionally high quality bidders, the highest cash bidder of that group should win. That would enforce the principle behind the Bill. It is a sensible suggestion, and I believe that it would improve and clarify the Bill. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will consider the matter again before the Bill is debated in detail in another place.

Mr. Corbett: As the Minister, and the House will know, when we began debating the Bill, our major concern was the way in which the Government proposed to sell off Channel 3 licences to the highest bidder, once the so-called quality threshold had been met. Let me acknowledge immediately that that concern has now been softened to some extent by amendment No. 654. The Minister is quite right, because when we first debated the matter there was concern throughout the Committee that the Government's intentions were not stated clearly enough on the face of the Bill to protect the Independent Television Commission from judicial review from 40 bidders.
I cannot agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The message I received from

him was that the wording now proposed by the Government gives the ITC almost absolute protection from judicial review. I am no lawyer, and nor is he, although at one stage he was close to one end of the law, but I can foresee courts having expensive arguments—I am not nit-picking, but the point is worth making—about the difference between "exceptionally high" and "substantially higher". Many an expensive hour will be spent in court considering that.
We welcome the fact that the Minister has made clear that the new definition of exceptional circumstances will apply to all the applications made for licences for the new commercial Channel 3 network. We feared at one stage that it might apply to one or two licences. That is an improvement and I do not want to disguise that fact. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Opposition played their part in persuading him to think again and to consult his colleagues. I should like to join the tribute that he paid to the Campaign for Quality Television and to the others who have much interest in and knowledge about these matters.
I began by giving our objections to the method of disposing of Channel 3 licences, but how much of a change does amendment No. 654 make? It certainly makes no change in principle. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that the exceptional circumstances clause was to empower the Independent Television Commission to take into account such factors as higher quality and to enable it to award the bid on quality grounds and not to the applicant who had not submitted the most cash.
I acknowledge that the amendment has clarified and strengthened the Bill, but the principle remains. Any money collected from the licensees other than that collected from the levy on national advertising revenue, which in effect is a continuing premium on the right to broadcast on scarce wavelengths, is money taken off the screen. It is money not going into programme diversity, range and quality; it is money that cannot be spent twice; and it is, at best, some of the money that would otherwise have been for programming.
The Government have accepted that in a roundabout way. I believe that is why another of the strong pillars of the Bill is the dropping of many of the public service broadcasting obligations from the present ITV franchise holders. The Minister has said many times that he sees the new Channel 3 system as being a notch below public service broadcasting. Recently that nice Mr. George Russell expressed it another way when he said that he saw the new system as being about 80 per cent. of the present public service broadcasting commitment.
Our gravest doubts centre on what will happen to the quality of programming in terms of diversity and choice. By that, I mean choice that is new and challenging and that innovates and encourages the opening of eyes and ears to what is different. I know that that concern is shared by Conservative Members, because two early-day motions —one was signed by about 60 and the other by about 80 right hon. and hon. Members—were tabled drawing attention to those concerns. It may be said that the amendment meets those concerns, but that was not just a narrow party political interest.
As I have said, this group of amendments goes some way towards meeting those concerns. However, the highest bid—or something near to it—remains at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the viewer will pay the real price


through fewer factual programmes. I do not want to weary the House too much on this joint. However, it is worth recalling the results of the IBA survey of attitudes to television that was carried out in 1989. From that, we all know what people want more of, but it is interesting to consider for a moment what people would like less of. For example, 30 per cent. of viewers would like to see fewer older and classic films and that surprised me; 29 per cent. of viewers would like to see fewer variety shows.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh.

Mr. Corbett: I am just quoting the research.
The IBA survey showed that 39 per cent. of viewers would like less pop and rock music, and I am probably among that number; 42 per cent. would like fewer quiz shows; and, panel games; 43 per cent. would like fewer chat shows and bottom of the pops in this sense, a clear half of the viewers asked would like to see fewer soap operas.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What would they like more of?

Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Lady wants to know, I will lend her a copy of the survey.
My point is that there is a strong and growing demand according to the research for more factually based programmes. They are not dull and because they are factual it does not mean that they do not entertain. Such programmes are essentially factually based.
From the experience of similar shake-ups in the broadcasting systems in France, West Germany and Italy, we know that the first casualties were factually based programes. I have shown that there is a strong demand. No doubt the Minister will tell me that we do not have to enshrine that in a continuation of the public service broadcasting requirements because, if it is that clear, even the thick heads running the present ITV system will respond to it.
In our judgment, in an increasingly competitive environment in broadcasting, particularly with the advent of the two satellite channels and the promise of many more to follow, there will be growing competition for viewers. Of course, one of the ways to attract viewers is to tailor programmes for them and in turn those programmes will appeal most to the advertisers. I am not talking about viewers en masse; the advertisers will be interested in particular groups of viewers who have certain amounts of money in their pockets or purses at particular times of the day or night. That is where the pressure will be. No doubt if the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who preached the unbridled merits of the free market earlier, was here now, he would be jumping up and down and cheering at my definition.
The Government's proposal, even with the amendments, puts the range and diversity of quality at risk. It is even more curious because in Committee the Minister told us that the amount of money that would be paid for the licence—let us describe that as the brown envelope—did not have to be tipped in up front. He said that it could be paid in instalments over the licence period. I do not object to that, but the Minister could arguably end up with less money than the income from the levy on national advertising revenue.
There is agreement that advertising revenue is hardly likely to grow at the moment. Indeed, there is some doubt whether it might dip off after a period of swift growth. It could be argued that over the whole of that licence period there will be a substantial growth in advertising revenue. The Government have the ability to adjust the levy. It is not necessarily fixed. They can change it year on year or take a gamble and say, "We shall have X per cent. throughout the period." That would fit in with the Government's free market philosophy. It is what they preach to everyone else. They tell people to try their luck and hope that the system will turn up more cash than was expected at the beginning of the franchise period on the back of the growth in advertising revenue.
I do not criticise the Minister. I wish to be open and to acknowledge the way in which he listened, consulted and responded and came back to the House with the amendment. However, the system of which the amendment is a part will not secure real, widened choice among a diverse range of quality programmes in the year ahead. I acknowledge that there is no perfect system and that both our way and the Government's way involve some highly subjective judgments.
The Minister denies that he is the author of the phrase "Becher's brook", and I accept that. I think that it was that nice Mr. George Russell again who used the term. The House is probably aware, but I owe it to the Radio Times for telling me, that the reason why that fence enjoys the name Becher's brook is that the first person to jump it was a rider by the name of Captain Becher and he came off his horse. The Minister said that he hoped that I would not say that the amendment did not go far enough. Well, I have not said that. However, the amendment does not meet our basic objections to the way in which the Government propose to award the licences. That is why we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Maclennan: The House can have no sense of the drama in Committee when these matters were discussed. Many members of the Committee—I venture to say almost all of them—felt that if the Government did not table an amendment such as the one before us, the future of television broadcasting would be led downhill and we should preside over a serious lowering of standards.
We view amendment No. 654 as a lifeline for television. The drama in Committee was created because people genuinely did not know, not what the Minister had in mind but how the Government would decide the issue. The Minister was probably always sympathetic to the view, although he accepted the legalistic point that it was not necessary, that the Bill would be strengthened by spelling these matters out for the avoidance of doubt. It is therefore right to pay tribute to him. I have no doubt that he had to persuade his colleagues of the virtue of the position that he has taken and has encapsulated in the amendment.
The amendment is well worded and I congratulate those who have played a part in drafting it. It should not lead to litigation and it will withstand judicial review. It makes it clear not only that the quality must be exceptionally high but that the bid which is lower in cash terms must be substantially higher in quality. That strengthens the quality requirement.
Having said that the amendment is an essential lifeline, do not take the view that it is the ideal way of allocating Channel 3 licences. I acknowledge that the old system was not appropriate to a more competitive world. It lacked


transparency and meant that the market was slow moving. There was a need to free up the system to make it more competitive. The Government were right to legislate, but they should have considered legislating on the basis of competition and quality. Greater transparency in bidding would have allowed for that, as it would have enabled the regulatory authority to make its judgments in an open marketplace. Published bids would have indicated a good deal more about their quality than anything available in the past. None the less, the Minister has saved us from a catastrophe and we are grateful for that.
The two amendments tabled in my name which appear in this group relate specifically to radio, but the Minister has taken some care about radio quality and I thank him. I do not expect that the Minister will be surprised if, enthusiastic as we are about the work that he has done, we feel it inappropriate to join him in the Lobby. We do not commend the entire scheme—we make the best of a bad job. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will join the Labour party in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Simon Coombs: The amendments in my name in the group relate to clause 70, which refers to the cable industry. I thank the Government for tabling a number of amendments to clause 70 which go a long way towards meeting the points made by myself and colleagues in Committee.
As with Channel 3, it is important that the term "exceptional circumstances" should be explained and that is why amendment No. 208 needs to be discussed. It addresses the important problem known as "cherry picking" and deserves careful thought.
The cable industry is relatively new, but investors have already demonstrated confidence in its future by beginning to build systems and by establishing channels. The current telecommunications licence requires cable operators to cover 100 per cent. of an area. Investors may well be encouraged by the abolition—

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend looks dubious and perhaps I should repent on what I am about to say. I accept his amendment in principle and we shall bring forward amendments to that effect in another place, although he would perhaps rather that I did not.

Mr. Coombs: If it were always that easy, we would not be here for nine hours at a time. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He has not had the opportunity to listen to my argument on this occasion, but I know that he is familiar with it. I am prepared to accept his undertaking that an opportunity to deal with the problem will arise in another place.
Under the present proposals an operator can choose to develop only the most attractive part of the area for which he has been granted a franchise. He can leave the other parts of the area uncabled, but my colleagues and I believe that that would be inimical to the best interests of the cable industry, its growth and future. If my hon. and learned Friend is prepared to take steps to prevent that from happening, or at least to ensure that different types of application for the development of a franchise are dealt with carefully in the bidding process, I shall be happy not to press my amendment.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have not had the privilege of watching the Minister's evolution in Committee. I wish

that I had because it has clearly been fascinating. It is rather like the Virginia Slims advert—"You have come a long way, babe." Unfortunately, there is still a good deal to do. The real problem is not the progress that has been made since—welcome though that is, and I am not seeking to knock or denigrate the Minister whose achivement is considerable—but the starting point from which he was forced to make that pilgrimage. That starting point should never have been ordained and put into the Bill.
The interesting question is, who decided to do so? Why did we develop the idea of auctioning television franchises? That is the crime and sin. As soon as that concept came in, it distorted the Bill's purpose. Who was responsible? I still do not know and it would be fascinating to know. Was it ordained by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me, fascinating as it might be. I do not think it was him, mad as the idea is. I imagine it must have been the Prime Minister—perhaps the Prime Minister's revenge on ITV or the greed of the Treasury. However, it is certainly wrong because it distorts the nature of television companies to make cash paramount. Accumulating a war chest of money and the ability to make the bid becomes the dominant consideration. As soon as that becomes paramount, the quality of production and the need to be expert producers of quality programmes goes by the board. That is why the decision to introduce the auction is already distorting the companies' nature.
Many of the companies are taking on staff, shedding labour—as Central Television is—or worsening the conditions under which people work—as Granada Television and Yorkshire Television are. There is confrontation as the companies try to squeeze more cash out of existing businesses at the expense of good industrial relations and quality of production. That distortion is already occurring.
The Minister has resiled, and has still further to resile from that position. We welcome that progress, but we must recognise it for what it is—progress away from a position that was wrong, insane and detrimental to good television and quality production. I say well done to the Minister for what he has personally achieved, but he should never have been put in that position in the first place.

Sir Peter Blaker: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I welcome what the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend about introducing an amendment in another place to pursue the theme of amendment No. 208.
I believe that factors are relevant to quality in connection with cable other than simply the coverage of the area and the time scale of construction. For example, community programmes are, in the cable context, equivalent to regional programming in connection with Channel 3.
My hon. and learned Friend will have observed that the pre-qualification conditions relating to cable in clause 69 are much slimmer than those in clause 16 relating to Channel 3. When he drafts the new amendment he promised, I should like him to take account of some of the factors in clause 16 that are relevant to cable, such as community programming.

Mr. George Walden: Earlier in this debate some of my hon. Friends, each in his or her own gentle way, pointed out certain shortcomings in the Bill in relation to quality. As someone who supports a Government who purport to be radical, I thought that here was a chance to take a radical view of a broadcasting matter, look at the whole sphere of what was happening and likely to happen in broadcasting and decide to go for quality as a way to secure and perhaps to reinforce broadcasting against a possible decline of quality. I also saw it as a chance to reinforce radical policies, particularly in education. As we know, the Bill started off with another sort of radicalism that seemed entirely inappropriate in this context.
However, as the Minister of State frequently reminds us, we must not let the best become the enemy of the good. I have looked extremely carefully at what the Minister has achieved. I see his achievements on this part of the Bill together with the provisions for the ITC to produce illustrative models of programmes. I cannot pretend that the amendments satisfy my inclinations, which would have been simply to have a quality auction and for the Treasury to sacrifice a certain amount of money in the process. Clearly that was never going to happen, and it will not happen now. It would be tedious repetition for me to go on with the arguments.
I acknowledge gratefully what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State did in Committee. I shall finish with one more Cassandra-like thought—that once again all the debate and all the efforts will be set at naught if the Government persist in over-excited tinkering with the BBC. Having got the position more or less acceptably right, they could send the whole thing spiralling slowly downhill if they started doing anything that would interfere with the public service standards of the BBC. Those standards are by no means what they should be, but they could be made a damn sight worse.
In not joining the Opposition for once, if it is their intention to vote against the Government, I emphasise strongly that I shall continue to scrutinise future Government policy on the BBC.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 41, with which it will be convenient—

Mr. Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We had intimated that we would seek a Division on amendment No. 354, which was in the group with amendment No. 253.

Mr. Speaker: We have not reached that on the amendment paper yet.

Clause 16

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 13, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) that, having regard to the information supplied by him under section 15(3)(d)(ii), he would be able to comply with subsection 2(c) below.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 706, in page 14, line 15, at end insert—

'(ddd) that a sufficient proportion of the programmes so included are made in the area for which the service is provided;'.
No. 38, in clause 17, in page 15, line 9, at end insert—
'and in considering whether there are such circumstances they shall take into account the information about use of regional facilities provided under section 15(3)(d)(ii) and the regional programming requirements under section 16(2)(c)'.

Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 41 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who regrets that he cannot be here. I speak also to amendment No. 706 in my name.
I wish to draw the attention of the House again to the amendment to clause 15, which was carried in Committee, and also to amendment No. 244, which the House considered last evening and which in many ways overtook amendments Nos. 41 and 706. I stress again the importance which many of us from the regions place on the regional structure of Channel 3 and on ensuring that there are proper facilities in the regions. The further a region is from London, the more important that is.
I promised my hon. Friend that I would speak briefly to his amendment but I will not press it. I am sure the House will agree that the amendments already made go a long way to satisfying the purpose and objective of my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). That will not surprise him because I moved similar amendments in Committee. He is entirely right in seeking to promote investment in the regions. I regret that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not here, because there has been considerable interest in the thinking behind his amendment, especially in the north of Scotland.

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 13, line 49, leave out 'any'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 200, in page 14, line 1, after 'news', insert 'and current affairs'.

Government amendments Nos. 113 and 114.

No. 693, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
'(g) that in each week not less than two hours at programmes are devoted to philosophical matters which cover Christianity and other religions of the world, agnosticism and humanism and that any such programmes are broadcast at intervals throughout the period for which the service is provided'.

No. 39, in page 14, line 29, after '(2)(f)', insert—
'(a) in relation to a national Channel 3 service,'.

No. 40, in page 14, line 31, after 'and', insert—
'(b) in relation to a regional Channel 3 service, "qualifying programmes" and "independent productions" may mean, in each case, programmes of such description, as the Secretary of State may by order specify, save that he shall not include regional news and current affairs programmes as qualifying programmes; and'.

Government amendments Nos. 116 and 378.

Mr. Mellor: This is a fairly central group of amendments, because they make significant changes to clause 16. Amendment No. 114 honours our pledge to


place a statutory requirement on Channel 3 licensees to provide religious and children's programmes. Amendment No. 113 enables sub-regional services to be part of the requirements for regional Channel 3 licensees. That is another example of our commitment to the regions, which include areas where a sub-regional arrangement already exists and works well.
Amendment No. 115 requires the ITC to take account of representations made by members of the public about prospective applicants, and amendment No. 116 relates to orders made by the Secretary of State for setting a minimum level of independent production and for defining independent production. As I have said, the amendments are significant, but they all flow from discussions in Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: Amendment No. 40 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who is not here to move it. I moved a similar amendment in Committee. Amendment No. 40 relates to the requirement that Channel 3 broadcasters shall use 25 per cent. independent production, and seeks to exclude regional news from that calculation. From what the Minister said in Committee, I anticipated that that was the case and that the amendment is quite unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on that, because I suspect that there is some uncertainty in the mind of Grampian Television. Will he confirm that amendment No. 40 is not strictly necessary?

Mr. Brian Wilson: I should like to speak about Gaelic television, which has become a surprisingly prominent issue during the whole of our deliberations on the Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here because I wish to pay him a rare tribute for obtaining from the Treasury £8 million for Gaelic television in Scotland. By any standard, that was an excellent achievement and I unreservedly welcome it.
Everyone has a vested interest in ensuring that that money is well spent, but it is by no means certain that it will be. I should like to offer some thoughts on how it could best be used to ensure what everyone wants to ensure—that it does the maximum amount of good for the Gaelic language and those who speak it. I fear that the money will create not a service of the type that everyone involved with Gaelic wants to see, but a sprinkling of programmes scattered about the schedules and adding up to no great effect or impact. I suspect that that will happen unless a strategy is devised to concentrate Gaelic programming within a regular time scale on a single channel so that people know where and when they can expect programmes. We must concentrate on quality as well as quantity.
The sum of £8 million is enormous compared with the amount that Gaelic television has at present. It is also enough in Scottish broadcasting terms to attract the interest of many people whose commitment to the Gaelic language and Gaelic television has in the past been modest to say the least. In some cases it has been zero. We want safeguards against the possibility that the money will be seized by people who see opportunities in it, but not necessarily opportunities to provide the best possible Gaelic service—which is what the Secretary of State for Scotland had in mind when the money was obtained from the Treasury.
I believe that the only way to use the money effectively is to create in Scotland a mini-S4C system. In other words,

there should be a regular time at which Scottish people know that they can turn on their television sets and see a Gaelic programme. I am not talking about anything on the scale of S4C in terms of hours or output; I am talking about perhaps one hour per day, which is so much more than at present that it will certainly be enough to satisfy the demand. It would be infinitely better to have an hour a day at a time when people know that they will find a quality Gaelic programme than simply scattering programmes of dubious merit at all hours of the day or night.
In the present circumstances, the Channel 3 companies will protest their willingness to feature Gaelic programming at peak viewing hours. That commitment is unrealistic and would not survive many months after the franchises had been awarded. That is especially true in the Scottish Television area, where there is a Gaelic audience of at most 1 or 2 per cent. of the total. It is not commercially sustainable to suggest that Gaelic television would be given that degree of prominence.
I understand the reasons why companies say now that stations will be given to Gaelic, because there is the attraction of receiving a substantial share of the £8 million that has suddenly appeared. I am sure that the recent commitment of STV to Gaelic can be satisfied within the framework that I suggest. However, it is not realistic to expect it to continue to broadcast such material to a minority audience at peak viewing time, or anything approaching it.
I fear that if it is left to the market place Gaelic television will once again be consigned to all hours in the early morning and the dead of night and the £8 million will not achieve its intended effect. The alternative is to take one hour a day—I suggest on either BBC2 or Channel 4 —and to concentrate the Gaelic programming within that time, perhaps at six or seven o'clock in the evening when it would seem sensible to group the programmes together. There are at present very small audiences in Scotland for either of those channels at those times.
If, say, one news bulletin and one quality programme per night is produced from that large budget, that will be the beginning of an acceptable Gaelic television service. That approach would probably also be the most acceptable to the vast majority of people in Scotland who are not Gaelic speakers. Their interests must be taken into account as well. It is quite reasonable to think that the 90 per cent. who cannot understand the Gaelic programmes would find a constant sprinkling of them an intrusion. It is far better for them to be grouped together in the one place. That is the way to achieve maximum value for the Government's money. It is essential, too, that that £8 million should help to finance a centre of production based at Inverness—or somewhere within the Gaelic-speaking areas—to produce Gaelic programmes independently. That would help to create jobs which could go to young Gaelic speakers.
As I know that the subject is of minority interest to many hon. Members, I will summarise. The Government have done well to provide £8 million for this minority language. It is in the interests of everybody that that money should be spent well rather than foolishly and that the maximum effect be achieved from it. Without going into more detail of this esoteric argument, I suggest that a concentration of programmes in a mini-S4C format is the sensible way to do this, rather than scattering programmes


around the schedules like confetti where they will be unable to compete or retain a place in the television market.

Mr. Darling: The amendment and the debate show how much cross-party co-operation and consensus there has been. At the risk of ruining his career, I thank the Minister for tabling these welcome amendments, which are in line with the feeling expressed on both sides of the Committee when we discussed clause 16. They greatly strengthen the commitment to regional television that most if not all of us want. In particular, I am glad that applicants for franchises will have to say that they will make programmes of particular interest to people living in the area for which the service is provided.
Having spent much of the Committee banging the regional drum, let me enter a caveat. While I hope that companies will pay regard to the regions they serve, engage local talents and make programmes that appeal to the different parts of the area, that does not mean that I want parochial regional television services. It is to the great credit of Granada, a regional company, that it made "The Jewel in the Crown", which had nothing to do with the north of England and very little to do with the United Kingdom as a whole, as it was set and filmed in India. Granada showed up the BBC, which had always given the impression that it was the only organisation that could make quality drama.
I hope that the Channel 3 company will compete with the BBC, Channel 4, and Channel 5 if that comes about, in producing good high-quality television programmes that are both regionally based and outward looking. I should hate to think that anybody looking at these proceedings would feel that we were concerned that people living in Manchester knew only about Manchester, while those living in Aberdeen knew only about Aberdeen. That would be insular indeed.
I am also glad that the Minister has added a requirement that news programmes must be of high quality. There was a risk that, without such a requirement, companies might be tempted to use agency news for their news programme. Although that would provide an adequate service, it would give no attention to events in the local area, and there would be no in-depth studies of such news.
I thank the Minister for amendment No. 114, which adds the requirement that schedules must include religious and children's programmes. The Opposition would have liked the amendment to go much further. One of the Bill's weaknesses is that the quality threshold is not strong enough. We want to ensure that there is a wide range of programmes, including those on current affairs, holidays, art and drama. However, no matter how long a list, one runs the risk of leaving something out and it could be assumed that it should be included. There is a difficulty, because some people might think that, because religious programmes and programmes intended for children are included in the Bill, not so much importance should be attached to other programmes.
Anyone who followed the proceedings in the Committee and who looks at the Bill as amended will realise that the quality threshold has been considerably strengthened. That is to the credit of the Committee and

the House. We have done in this Bill what we have singularly failed to do in other Bills because of the party divide. I think that it makes for a better Bill altogether.
There remain fundamental differences, however, between the Conservative and Labour parties on how franchises should be allocated in the first place, as we said in the previous debate. There is no doubt that clause 16 could be improved, because things can always be improved, but I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister has accepted the many suggestions which have been made. The result of our deliberations is that the quality threshold is substantially higher than it was when the Bill was first introduced to this place. We still hold out hopes that further improvements will be made in another place. It would be wrong, however, not to give the Minister credit where credit is due and not to pay him tribute. That applies also to everyone else who was involved in the consideration of the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—.[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for his most charming tribute. I share his pleasure that clause 16 has been improved as a result of our deliberations. It will set a quality threshold that it will not be easy to surmount unless one is an extremely effective applicant.

Mr. Corbett: A strong horse.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, indeed—not some poor old nag.
I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) in succeeding in advancing arguments that relate to clause 169 while the House was discussing clause 16. I suppose that that will save some time later in our proceedings. I enjoyed his remarks and I shall consider them carefully when we formulate proposals for the Gaelic fund. I am grateful for his recognition that the Government have taken a major step forward.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that it is our intention to exclude news and news-related programmes, whether regional or national, from the requirement. That intention will be enshrined in secondary legislation in due course. In other words, amendment No. 40 is not necessary. I confirm that we shall be dealing with the contents of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 14, line 8, leave out from 'included' to end of line 13 and insert—

'(i) to a suitable range of regional programmes, that is to say, programmes (including news programmes) which are of particular interest to persons living within the area for which the service is provided, and
(ii) if the service is to include the provision of such programmes as are mentioned in section 14(2A), to a suitable range of programmes for each of the different parts of that area or (as the case may be) for each of the different communities living within it, being in each case a range of programmes (including news programmes) which are of particular interest



to persons living within the relevant part of that area or (as the case may be) the relevant community,
and that any news programmes so included in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) are of high quality;
(ca) that a suitable proportion of the regional programmes included in the service in accordance with paragraph (c) are made within the area for which it is to be provided;'.

No. 114, in line 13, at end insert—
`(cb) that a sufficient amount of time is given in the programmes included in the service to religious programmes and programmes intended for children;'.

No. 115, in line 26, after `(4)', insert
`In deciding whether an applicant's proposed service would comply with the requirements specified in subsection (2) or (3) (as the case may be), the Commission shall take into account any representations made to them as to the nature of the service which should be provided under the licence applied for; and'.

No. 116, in line 39, leave out from 'and' to 'House' in line 40 and insert
'no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 17

AWARD OF LICENCE TO PERSON SUBMITTING HIGHEST CASH BID

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 15, line 1, leave out 'the amounts specified in the cash bids submitted by'.
No. 19, in line 2, leave out `are the same,' and insert 'have submitted cash bids specifying an identical amount which is higher than the amount of any other cash bid submitted in respect of the licence, then (unless they propose to exercise their power under subsection (3) in relation to the licence)'.

No. 20, in line 7, after 'may', insert
`disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) and'

. No. 21, in line 7, leave out
`other than the one who'
and insert 'who has not'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Amendment proposed: No. 354, in line 9, leave out `exceptional'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 256.

Division No. 198]
[10.1 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allen, Graham
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Buckley, George J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beggs, Roy
Corbett, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Blair, Tony
Cummings, John


Blunkett, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)





Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, Mrs Llin
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Jo


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Illsley, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ingram, Adam
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kennedy, Charles
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Livingstone, Ken
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Wallace, James


McAllion, John
Walley, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McFall, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKelvey, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maclennan, Robert
Wilson, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McWilliam, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Worthington, Tony


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wray, Jimmy


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Maxton, John
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Alexander, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael






Allason, Rupert
Gill, Christopher


Amess, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Amos, Alan
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodlad, Alastair


Ashby, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkins, Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gorst, John


Baldry, Tony
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bellingham, Henry
Gregory, Conal


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boswell, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)
Hannam, John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Hayes, Jerry


Brown, Michael (Brlgg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Budgen, Nicholas
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burns, Simon
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butcher, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Irving, Sir Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jack, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jackson, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Janman, Tim.


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Conway, Derek
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cormack, Patrick
Knowles, Michael


Couchman, James
Latham, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawrence, Ivan


Curry, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Day, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dunn, Bob
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Madel, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marlow, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


Gardiner, George
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew. Rt Hon Sir Patrick





Mellor, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Sir Hal
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mudd, David
Sumberg, David


Neale, Gerrard
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thorne, Neil


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Redwood, John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wheeler, Sir John


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wilshire, David


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Speller, Tony
Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'do so' and insert 'award the licence to that applicant'.

No. 654, in page 15, line 9, at end insert—
'(3 A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the Commission may regard the following circumstances as exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid, namely where it appears to the Commission—

(a) that the quality of the service proposed by such an applicant is exceptionally high; and
(b) that the quality of that proposed service is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed—

(i) by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid, or
(ii) in a case falling within subsection (2), by each of the applicants who have submitted equal highest bids;

and where it appears to the Commission, in the context of the licence, that any circumstances are to be regarded as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of subsection (3), those circumstances may be so regarded by them despite the fact that similar circumstances have been so regarded by them in the context of any other licence or licences.'.

No. 24, in line 10, leave out 'who submitted the highest bid,' and insert
'to whom (apart from this subsection) they would award the licence in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.

No. 25, in line 13, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.

No. 26, in line 33, leave out 'person who submitted the highest bid,' and insert
'applicant to whom (apart from any such requirement) they would have awarded it in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.

No. 27, in line 35, at end insert
'and any such rules may provide for the awarding of licences by reference to orders of preference notified to the Commission by applicants at the time of making their applications.'.

No. 28, in line 40, leave out
'the applicant who submitted the highest bid'

and insert 'an applicant'.

No. 29, in line 41, leave out from `if to end of line 46 and insert
'that person had not made an application for the licence.'.

No. 30, in line 48, at end insert
'as soon as reasonably practicable after awarding the licence'.

No. 31, in page 16, line 1, leave out
as soon as is reasonably practicable'.

No. 32, in line 9, leave out 'and..

No. 33, in line 11, leave out
'other than the one who'
and insert 'who has not'.

No. 34, in line 13, at end insert
';and
(d) such other information as the Commission consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 18

HOLDER OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCE TO GIVE SECURITY AGAINST FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED SERVICE

Amendments made: No. 370, in page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 32.

No. 371, in line 33, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 36 and insert
'as if he had not made an application for the licence.'.

No. 372, in line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) If at any time after a Channel 3 licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

(a) that person indicates to the Commission that he does not intend to provide the service in question, or
(b) the Commission for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide that service once the licence has come into force,
then, subject to the subsection (4A)—

(i) the Commission shall revoke the licence,
(ii) the whole, or (if the Commission so determine) a specified part, of any security given by that person under this section shall be forfeited to the Commission, and
(iii) section 17 shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

(4A) Subsection (4) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Commission have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the service in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.

(4B) Where the Commission propose to revoke under subsection (4) a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service, they may invite the holder of any other such licence to provide his licensed service additionally for the area for which the first mentioned service is to be provided; and, where the holder of any such licence agrees to provide his licensed

service for that area, the Commission shall authorise him to do so, during such period as they may determine, by means of a variation of his licence to that effect.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 19

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 373, in page 18, line 45, leave out from beginning to 'estimating' in line 1 on page 19. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 20

DURATION AND RENEWAL OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 374, in page 19, line 21, after `only', insert `(subject to subsection (5A))'.

No. 375, in line 35, at end insert—
`(5A) Section 17(4) to (6) shall apply in relation to an applicant for the renewal of a Channel 3 licence as those provisions apply in relation to such an applicant as is mentioned in section 17(4), but as if any reference to the awarding of such a licence to the applicant were a reference to the renewal of the applicant's licence under this section.'.

No. 376, in page 20, line 24, leave out 'and' and insert—
`(aa) section 18(4) to (4B) shall apply in relation to any time after the renewal of the licence but before the beginning of the period for which it has been renewed as those provisions apply in relation to an)' time after a Channel 3 licence has been granted but before it has come into force (except that section 18(4) shall so apply with the omission of paragraph (ii)); and'.

Clause 21

THE CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION

Amendment made: No. 254, in page 21, line 4, leave out `from time to time' and insert 'for the time being'.—[Air. Mellor.]

Schedule 3

THE CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 255, in page 149, line 34, at end insert—
`(4) This paragraph does not apply in relation to ex-officio members of the Corporation.'.

No. 256, in line 36, leave out `to each member' and insert—
'(a) to each member other than an ex-officio member'.

No. 257, in line 37, after 'allowances', insert',
and
(b) to each ex-officio member such allowances,'.

No. 258, in line 45, at end insert—
'(3A) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to ex-officio members of the Corporation.'.

No. 259, in line 47, after 'determination', insert 'under sub-paragraph (1)'.

No. 260, in page 150, leave out lines 37 to 50.

No. 261, in page 151, line 14, after 'Corporation', insert
'other than an ex-officio member'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 24

REVENUE DEFICITS OF CORPORATION TO BE FUNDED BY CHANNEL 3 LICENSEES

Amendments made: No. 492, in page 22, line 32, leave out 'determine' and insert 'estimate'.

No. 493, in line 33, at end insert—
`and the Commission may, on one or more occasions, revise any estimate made by them under this subsection.'.

No. 494, in line 36, leave out from first 'the' to 'and' in line 37 and insert—
'total television revenues for that year;'.

No. 495, in page 23, line 1, leave out from 'If' to `by' in line 4 and insert—
', in the case of any year, the aggregate of the following amounts, namely—

(a) the amount of the Corporation's qualifying revenue for that year as estimated by the Commission under subsection (1), and
(b) any amount which, at the beginning of that year, is for the time being standing to the credit of any such reserve fund as is mentioned in section 25(3),
is less than the amount of the Corporation's prescribed minimum income for that year as estimated by the Commission under subsection (1), the Commission may (subject to subsection (4)) determine that the amount of the difference shall be raised'.

No. 496, in line 15, leave out 'Corporation' and insert `Commission'.

No. 497, in line 18, leave out from 'Commission' to `to' in line 19.

No. 498, in line 21, leave out 'the revised estimate' and insert—
`any revised estimate made by them under subsection (1)'.

No. 499, in line 23, at end insert—
`(5A) Any amount received by the Commission by virtue of subsection (5)(a) shall be transmitted by them to the Corporation.

(5B) Where, in respect of any year—

(a) the Commission have imposed a levy under subsection (3), and
(b) the aggregate amount transmitted by them to the Corporation under subsection (5A) exceeds the relevant amount,
the Commission shall notify the Corporation of that fact; and the Corporation shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving such a notification, repay to the Commission the amount of that excess.
(5C) In subsection (5B) "the relevant amount" means the amount by which the aggregate of the following amounts, namely—

(a) the Corporation's qualifying revenue for the year in question, and
(b) any such amount as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b),

is less than the Corporation's prescribed minimum income for that year.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 25

APPLICATION OF EXCESS REVENUES OF CORPORATION

Amendment made: No. 500, in page 24, line 12, at end insert
'; and no direction may be given by the Secretary of State under that subsection with respect to the application of any amount for the time being standing to the credit of that fund which has been taken into account by the Commission for the purposes of section 24(3)(b) or (5C)(b).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 26

CHANNEL 5

Amendment made: No. 382, in page 24, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) If the Commission so determine, Channel 5 shall be provided under a particular licence only between such times of the day or on such days of the week (or both) as they may determine.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 27

APPLICATION TO CHANNEL 5 OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHANNEL 3

Amendments made: No. 377, in page 24, line 47, leave out 'and'.

No. 378, in line 48, leave out 'paragraph (c)' and insert 'paragraphs (c) and (ca)'.

No. 379, in line 48, at end insert
'; and (c) section 18 shall have effect with the omission of subsection (4B).'.[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 28

CHANNEL 5 LICENSEE REQUIRED TO RETUNE EQUIPMENT SUSCEPTIBLE TO INTERFERENCE

Amendments made: No. 383, in page 25, line 1, after `licence', insert
'which is in force at the commencement of the provision of Channel 5'.

No. 384, in line 5, after 'kept' insert
'(being a request made before such date as is specified in the conditions)'.

No. 385, in line 7, leave out It' and insert 'the equipment'.

No. 386, in line 12, leave out 'the Commission may determine' and insert
'is specified in the conditions'.

No. 387, in line 15, at end insert—
'(1A) Any such Channel 5 licence shall also include conditions requiring the holder of the licence to publicise, in such manner as may be approved by the Commission,. reformation with respect to—

(a) the likelihood of different kinds of equipment suffering interference caused by the transmission of Channel 5;
(b) the arrangements which the holder of the licence is required to make by virtue of conditions imposed in pursuance of subsection (1); and
(c) the kinds of equipment in relation to which those arrangements are to be so made.'.

No. 388, in line 15, at end insert—
`(1B) The holder of a Channel 5 licence shall not be required, by virtue of conditions imposed in pursuance of subsection (1), to make any such arrangements as are mentioned in that subsection in relation to any relevant equipment unless the equipment—

(a) is, on the date of the making of such a request as is referred to in paragraph (a)(i) of that subsection, kept by the person in question wholly or mainly for domestic purposes, and
(b) was so kept by that person on the commencement date (if that date occurred before the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above);
and, where any such equipment has been returned or otherwise modified in accordance with any such conditions, he holder of such a licence shall not be required by virtue of my such conditions to make arrangements on any subsequent occasion for the retuning or other modification of that equipment.


(1C) Any dispute as to when the commencement date occurred in the case of any relevant equipment shall be determined by the Commission.'.

No. 389, in line 15, at end insert

`(1D) Where—

(a) in accordance with section 26(2A), more than one Channel 5 licence is in force at the same time, and
(b) each of the licences includes such conditions as are mentioned in subsections (1) and (1A),
the holders of the licences shall each comply with those conditions to such extent as the Commission may determine in relation to him.'.

No. 390, in page 25, line 16, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert
'this section "the commencement date", in relation to any relevant equipment, means the date when Channel 5 began to be provided for reception in an area which includes the place where the equipment is kept on the date of the making of such a request as is referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i); and'.

Clause 29

PROVISION OF NEWS ON CHANNELS 3 AND 5

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 391, in page 35, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) In subsection (2) "nominated news provider" means a body corporate for the time being nominated for the purposes of that subsection under section 30.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can take Government amendments Nos. 392 to 400, amendment No. 488 and Government amendments Nos. 401 to 404.

Mr. Mellor: The amendments make changes to clauses 29 and 30. First, the ITC must now invite applications for nominations as a news provider and must consult all the regional Channel 3 licensees an any nomination or termination of the nomination of a news provider. That should give some openness and an element of participation in the nomination process.
Secondly, the review procedure on nominated news providers is now to be revoked if an applicant has been refused nomination. Otherwise, it would be a pointless exercise, as no action could result from the review. However, the reviews can take place at any intervals that the ITC decides rather than on two or more occasions. Therefore, the procedure is more practicable and flexible.
Thirdly, there is provision for nomination to be terminated by the ITC if performance is unsatisfactory. All those who would be disqualified from holding an ITC licence by the ownership restrictions imposed by part II of schedule 2 are similarly disqualified from being nominated as a news provider. All the other amendments are minor or consequential.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which, so far as they go, are of some value.
Amendment No. 488 stands in my name and in the names of the hon. Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I must make it plain that the arrangements for Independent Television News are not adequate. What is proposed will have far-reaching consequences for the provision of national news.
The Government have a choice—allowing competition and market forces to triumph or continuing the present protected non-profit-making enterprise of ITN. The Government are allowing ITN into the marketplace but ensuring that it is protected from competition, thereby

effectively creating a private monopoly that can use the resources and the prestige of television to seek profits in other markets, such as radio news, as is already happening, or in other aspects of television or information work.
The Government's proposals have met with the opposition of almost all the companies that provide regional coverage. The case for the change has not been well made. Amendment No. 488 proposes to delete subsection (7)(b) of clause 30, which would prevent Channel 3 licensees from owning more than 49 per cent. of the shareholding of ITN.
Some within ITN may feel that their management style has been cramped, but they owe their present position to investment by television companies. There is no guarantee that new owners, interested above all in profit rather than the end product, will be keen to invest more in programmes. It also remains wrong in principle that companies required to show a programme are debarred from holding an owning stake.
Quality will suffer, because the new ITN will not necessarily be primarily interested in its television output. The emphasis could increasingly be on mass audiences and on cheaper production. There is further concern that a commercial management would be less understanding of the principles and requirements of broadcasting and more open to outside commercial or political pressure. It is more likely than professional broadcasters to have its own commercial or political views which it would wish, however obliquely, to be reflected in the editorial line.
I foresee that the Minister may argue that there is a statutory quality requirement, and that there would be a threat hanging over the main nominated news provider of other companies being nominated if quality slips, but the IBA—the ITC-elect—has made it clear that it expects only one news provider to be nominated, and it is obvious that it will be ITN. While it certainly has a power and does not rule out using it to nominate other companies, it is clear that it believes that the revenues do not exist to fund more than one news provider. In other words, the market will not work.
That is the most compelling reason for not putting Independent Television News into the marketplace. However, if the Government have confidence in the market and genuinely believe that there is a role for the market, they should have the courage of their convictions and let the marketplace operate.
Several companies, including Visnews, believe that they are effectively equipped and financed to offer a higher quality service for less money. If it was a requirement that there should be at least one nominated rival to ITN. that would be a provision for a proper market. It would ensure some competition and the efficiency that the Government have been advocating throughout our debates. It would also give the television companies power to ensure that news programmes are perhaps less London-centred and reflect national and international news from a national and not a regional standpoint.
The provision for Independent Television News seems to satisfy no one. It does not satisfy the companies and it is not wholly satisfactory to those in ITN, who, I believe, want to continue broadly as they are at present. The provision certainly does not satisfy others who believe themselves to be capable of providing an alternative to ITN. Because the provision reduces the stake of Channel 3 companies in the provision of news, the news customers will not necessarily be in the minds of the news providers.
I do not know of any other country where arrangements like those in the Government's proposal operate. The Government's proposal is an unacceptable compromise which the House would do well to reject. I therefore commend amendment No. 488.

Mr. Steen: I will not delay the House with amendment No. 488. However, I want to tease from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, even at this late hour, the reason why he is so keen to give third parties the majority stake in ITN. Why cannot that be a minority stake?
The ITN network is probably the envy of the civilised world. It is one of the most successful news programmes of its kind. Why does my hon. and learned Friend believe that it should be changed? Why does he believe that it will be better for that change—because that is the only reason why it should be changed?
My amendment is intended to persuade the Government that they should look again at the formula and realise that there has never been a shortage of money in the ITN network. The television companies have always put in what was needed. Even at this late stage, will my hon. and learned Friend the Minister realise that it is a pity to change something that is successful on the basis that it might be better? Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will explain why he has brought forward this proposal in this way.

Mr. Corbett: I suspect that the Minister will tell us in some perverse manner that his proposal is yet another shining example of the righteousness and beauty of market forces. However, before the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) gets too excited, I hope to demonstrate that the Government have misread the situation.
In Committee, I referred to the Romanian question. Within almost minutes of President Ceausescu calling a rally in the main square of Bucharest to decree that glasnost and perestroika were not needed in Romania because they had arrived already, unnoticed by the population, the revolution exploded. A decision had to be taken immediately by those responsible for the management of ITN, not about whether to cover events in Romania but about how to cover them. They had to ask themselves whether the events were important enough to send at least one crew out there as fast as possible, or whether to rely on someone else doing so and try to buy the coverage from CNN, NBC or another channel.
The House will remember that those events took place just before Christmas. There was no time for board meetings and so on. A decision was taken that, although the budget did not provide for it, ITN had to cover the story. That makes my point and shows why the Government are so profoundly wrong on the matter. Those responsible for taking spending decisions are those who put the money into the kitty. Moreover, when they knowingly exceed a budget, as they presumably had to, even if only a monthly or quarterly budget, for the instant coverage of Romania, they know that it is likely that they will have to go to the companies that chip into the pot of ITN and say, "We did this and we need some extra money from you."
10.30 pm
I can think of no better example of accountability. The direct users of the ITV licence, the holders, are those who pay for it. Under the Government's proposals, a new factor will be introduced. If more than 51 per cent. of the company is owned by people who are not Channel 3 licence holders, those people will expect a profit. One of two things will happen: either the cost, and therefore the price, of providing the ITN news service will increase to provide that profit, or some or all of the profit will come out of what is now spent on gathering news. That must be so. It may be a combination of both. Extra money will be required which is not needed now because ITN is a non-profit-making company, as the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said. I hope that no one reads into that that ITN is careless about money. It is not.
The new ingredient and the prime effect of what the Government propose is that the profit has to be found from somewhere.

Mr. Gale: Taking up the hon. Gentleman's Romanian example, I hope that ITN will send a crew out to that country immediately to demonstrate to the free world how unfair and unfree the present electoral processes are. I also hope that it will scrutinise the results and the six days between the closing of the poll and the opening of the ballot boxes. I hope that it will make a further success of that by selling the coverage around the free world.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that for a moment I wondered which country he was referring to. No one setting budgets for international news coverage could possibly have imagined what was about to explode in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, to which there had to be a response simply to satisfy the viewers, let alone from the point of view of selling the coverage. I have no doubt that ITN will take the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned seriously.
ITN will face extra competition for the viewers to whom it appeals—it is used to competition from the BBC already—from the thematic dedicated satellite channels, whether programmes on those channels are better or worse. Either the cost of the service that ITN delivers will go up or there will be pressure on it to spend less on news collection. I cannot for the life of me understand how that is supposed to add to the performance of ITN.
Earlier, the Minister told us how rotten we were to expect Sky Television to divest itself almost instantly, as people would know that it was an unwilling seller. That argument may apply to ITN. If the clause remains as it is, what arrangements will be made and over what period to ensure that ITN is not ripped off for a valuable property?

Mr. Mellor: The arrangements for ITN do not spring fully armed from the brow of some poor benighted Minister, either myself or my predecessor. They reflect sustained discussions, including sustained lobbying from leading figures within ITN. It would be wrong to see the arrangements as something that has been imposed on ITN or the wider industry by the Government.
It is true that a number of people, not least the company, have an advocate in my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and that they do not like what is happening. I must advocate a fair position for the wider community rather than for the company.
We have two objectives in the provision of news on Channel 3. First, we want to ensure that Channel 3 offers


a high-quality national and international news service able to compete effectively with the BBC. Consistent with that objective there should, wherever possible, be competition in the supply of news to Channel 3. We believe, as do a number of people outside Government, that, if Channel 3 licensees are allowed to own all of a nominated news provider, a conflict of interest will arise between a news organisation that may be seeking to expand its interests and those licensees who are solely concerned about their news service. It would therefore be to the benefit of ITN if it was liberated to some degree—leading figures within ITN share that belief. As a result of the proposed measures, a controlling interest will almost certainly still be held by the companies holding the Channel 3 franchise, as we know that 49 per cent. is an effective controlling interest in almost every company.
The ITC will be masterminding divestment pursuant to clause 36. It will be able to do so over a specified period to avoid the problems that would otherwise arise. It will be for the ITC to determine how long a period of grace to allow, and I know that it is bending its mind to that now.
I do not consider that the proposals pose any threat to ITN—rather, they provide ITN with the opportunity to develop. If it is consistent with the maintenance of high-quality news, national and international, that there should be a competing provider, it is right to include that caveat. We know that such high-quality news is an expensive commodity, but if it is consistent with that to have a competing provider, it is important to have a proviso that such competition does not place in jeopardy the provision of that news. Other providers may want to enter the market, and it would be wrong not to allow them to do so.
Within a sensible framework that reflects the realities of the situation, I hope that we have introduced some much-needed competition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30

NOMINATION OF BODIES TO PROVIDE NEWS FOR CHANNEL 3

Amendments made: No. 392, in page 25, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

`(1) With a view to securing that, at the commencement of section 29(2), there is at least one body corporate nominated under this section as a nominated news provider, the Commission shall, before the commencement of that provision, invite bodies corporate appearing to them to be qualified for nomination to make applications to be so nominated.

(1A) Where a body corporate—

(a) applies to the Commission (whether before or after the commencement of section 29(2)) to be nominated under this section as a nominated news provider, and
(b) appears to the Commission to be qualified for nomination,
the Commission shall so nominate that body unless they are satisfied that to do so would be likely, in view of the number of bodies already so nominated, to be prejudicial to the provision of high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole).'.

No. 393, in page 26, line 8, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.

No. 394, in page 26, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

'(3) Where the Commission have refused to nominate a body corporate under this section on the ground that they are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1A), the Commisslion shall from time to time thereafter, at such intervals as they may determine, review the performance as nominated news providers of all of the bodies for the time being nominated under this section; and if on any such review they are satisfied, in the case of such body so nominated as they may determine, that another body corporate which—

(a) is not a nominated news provider, but
(b) appears to them to be qualified for nomination,
would offer a better service than the first-mentioned body as respects the provision of high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services, they shall (subject to subsection (5)) by notice terminate that body's nomination, and shall nominate the other body under this section in its place.'.

No. 395, in page 26, line 28, leave out from 'If' to end of line 29 and insert
'at any time the Commission—'.

No. 396, in page 26, line 33, leave out from 'that' to end of line 39 and insert
`to terminate that body's nomination would not be prejudicial to the provision of high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole),'.

No. 397, in page 26, line 41, leave out from `nomination' to end of line 42.

No. 398, in page 26, line 45, leave out 'matters complained of' and insert
`proposed termination of its nomination'.

No. 399, in page 26, line 46, at end insert—
'(5A) Before nominating or terminating the nomination of, any body under this section the Commission shall consult every person who is the holder of a licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service.'.

No. 400, in page 27, line 1, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.

No. 401, in page 27, line 17, leave out 'Channel 3 licences' and insert
'licences to provide regional Channel 3 services'.

No. 402, in page 27, line 21, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) Any limit imposed in accordance with subsection (7)(a) shall have effect in relation to a particular participant as if he and every person connected with him were one person; and for this purpose the following persons shall be treated as connected with a particular participant, namely—

(a) a person who controls the participant;
(b) an associate of the participant or of a person falling within paragraph (a); and
(c) a body which is controlled by the participant or by any associate of the participant.'.

No. 403, in page 27, line 28, at end insert—
'(9A) A body corporate shall be disqualified for being nominated under this section if, by virtue of any provision in Part II of Schedule 2, it would be a disqualified person in relation to any description of licence granted by the Commission; and any reference in this section to a body corporate appearing to the Commission to be qualified for nomination is a reference to a body corporate appearing to them to be both—

(a) effectively equipped and adequately financed to provide high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services; and
(b) not disqualified for being nominated under this section by virtue of this subsection.'.

No. 404, in page 27, line 29, after '(10)% insert 'In this section—

(a) references to a nominated news provider are references to a body corporate for the time being nominated under this section; and
(b) references to nomination under this section are references to nomination under this section for the purposes of section 29(2);

and'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 31

SCHOOLS PROGRAMMES

Amendment made: No. 655, in page 28, line 3, at end insert—
`(dd) conditions requiring the licence holder to provide such material for use in connection with the schools programmes broadcast by him as may be necessary to secure that effective use is made of those programmes in schools;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 32

SUBTITLING FOR THE DEAF

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 656, in page 28, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) A Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall include—

(a)conditions—
(i) specifying the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section, and
(ii) requiring programmes with subtitling to be broadcast in the licensed service during not less than that number of hours in each week; and
(b) conditions requiring the holder of the licence to attain such technical standards relating to the provision of subtitling as are specified in the conditions.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 657 to 669.

Mr. Mellor: I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in his place as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) because they have both taken an active interest in this matter. It was a particular pleasure for me to be able to discuss certain changes in subtitling arrangements for the deaf with the right hon. Gentleman and I was most grateful to him for his kind words of commendation for what I announced in Committee.
The effect of the amendments will be substantially to redraft clause 32 and to require Channel 3 licensees to subtitle at least 50 per cent. of their programmes within the first five years of the new franchises. Similar requirements have been laid on Channel 5. I should make it clear that neither channel will be able to make a charge specifically for such subtitling. The cost will have to be absorbed. I believe that that is the very least that we should expect the companies to do. It is a substantial increase on what we said that we wanted them to do at the outset. I hope very much that they will not only achieve that, but will do better. There is nothing to stop them doing so. I see the figure not as a ceiling but as a floor, and I hope that they will create a ceiling above the floor. It is a challenge that we all want them to live up to, and more than meet. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I warmly welcome the amendments because I know that they are of great value to deaf people. The amendments will be warmly welcomed by the Deaf Broadcasting Association after its vigorous campaign for them. I pay tribute to Austin Reeves and Jane Oberman who have worked so hard on the issue of subtitling.
Amendment No. 661 is the crucial one. It ensures that, by 1998, 50 per cent. of all programmes on Channels 3 and 5 will be subtitled. The House should recognise that the amendment is largely due to the Minister of State, who has shown great understanding of the problems of deaf people. It is not the first time that he has done so. When he was a Minister at the Department of Health and I sought to press him about modern implants for deaf people, I found that I did not need to do so because he found millions of pounds for that precise cause to help deaf people. By supporting the amendments he is helping to ensure that deaf people are no longer excluded from the entertainment, education and information provided by television. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done. I wish to place that clearly on the record. He has a fine record. Television has a crucial role to play in society, and from now on deaf people will be able to join in the discussions about what was on the box last night, which they could not do in the past.
I have one reservation about the wording of the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with it later. The part of amendment No. 661 that refers to the year 1999 and thereafter refers only to the greatest number of hours in a week which seems to the ITC to be "reasonably practicable". Those magic words are always brought in by civil servants, whom I am not attacking for one moment, and they can be a means of evading the issue if we are not careful. They may leave a loophole so that in subsequent years the percentage could fall below 50 per cent. if that was later seen to be "reasonably practicable". That is unlikely because there would be a big row if any company tried it. Nevertheless, I hope that the wording will be changed so that deaf people can look forward to the increase in subtitling without a fear of backsliding by any company.
I hope that there will be a steady increase in the percentage of programmes covered by subtitling year by year so that 50 per cent. is achieved in 1998 and there is a steady continuation thereafter. The goal is 100 per cent. subtitling. Deaf people have a right to understanding and comprehension of television, and I am glad that we are moving in that direction.
10.45 pm
I also welcome amendment No. 656; subsection (1)(b) will ensure that subtitling is of the highest standard. Amendment No. 668 will ensure that no charge is made for subtitling. Both provisions will be greatly appreciated by deaf people, who tend to be among the poorest sections of society.
When the Bill reaches the other place, those who rely upon signing should not be forgotten. The Minister should consult the Deaf Broadcasting Association so that those who rely upon signing for communication may be included in this forward-looking provision for deaf people.
I express again my appreciation of the efforts made by the Minister, by the Deaf Broadcasting Association and by others outside the House who have campaigned so assiduously. The provisions mean something to deaf people. Subtitling, however imperfect, is of enormous value. I watch television when it is subtitled because I can comprehend it. Being totally deaf, I cannot understand programmes which are not subtitled, no matter how hard I try to lip-read. Subtitling is crucial—the box is meaningless without it. With subtitling, it is proper television for deaf people. I welcome the amendments.

Mr. Corbett: We all owe a particular debt to my right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for making us more properly aware of the problems of those who have to live in the silent world of the deaf. We are grateful, too, for the representations of the Deaf Broadcasting Association and of deaf constituents. We are particularly grateful for the way in which the Minister responded in Committee by laying much higher targets on Channel 3 licence holders than were originally envisaged. I make no complaint about where we started from—it is where we end up that matters.
Perhaps "end up" is the wrong phrase. I take the Minister's point that 50 per cent. is to be regarded in no sense as a ceiling but as an encouragement. When Channel 3 licensees know that the duty lies ahead of them, once the investment is made in people and equipment I guess that there will be rapid progress to more than 50 per cent. subtitling. I hope that there will be an expansion of signing, too, which is also important to many deaf people.
The BBC should study the provisions carefully and should not fall behind. I am happy to acknowledge that the BBC is already committed to subtitling the "Nine O'Clock News" by, I think, the autumn. That will be a major step.
All those responsible for broadcasting are now more alert to the needs of deaf viewers, and there is a need for those of us who are blessed with good hearing to do all that we can to ensure that deaf people are brought more and more into our world, so that they can play their roles as properly informed and active citizens. I congratulate the Minister again on his response.

Mr. Roger Sims: I warmly endorse the tributes paid by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to the various organisations which have so effectively and vigorously promoted the campaign for more subtitling. There was only one omission from the right hon. Gentleman's list because, of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself has campaigned effectively for a long time for the cause of the deaf. He has the admiration of all hon. Members. We all appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman does, but we cannot appreciate the disability from which he suffers. Some years ago I was unfortunate enough to catch some sort of infection which for several weeks caused me to be completely deaf. That brought home to me the sort of world in which the profoundly deaf live and made me realise how they are cut off from so much communication.
The value of subtitling cannot be overrated. It is extremely useful, even in its present form, and the commitments made by the amendments are warmly welcomed. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for tabling them and I congratulate the Government on their response to an effective campaign.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on his splendid amendment. We are all grateful to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who has been instrumental in bringing it about. I remind the House that the amendment benefits millions of people—not just those who have a hearing problem, but those who have a language difficulty. The English language is complex and

subtitling will help millions of people in the United Kingdom for whom English is not the first language. That is important.
The amendment will also help people who have a below average learning ability or who have difficulties with reading and listening. Spoken English is highly complex but subtitling uses simple, short words and concise sentences to get the meaning across. We are pressing for more than 50 per cent. subtitling but that is not a large, extravagant or greedy aim because Covent Garden already has 100 per cent. subtitling.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The amendments put forward by myself and others in the Committee were tame compared with those that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has tabled. Our amendments were described as draconian and unattainable by the television companies. However, my hon. and learned Friend went beyond what I and others had asked for and there was an audible gasp by deaf people and people in television when they heard his announcement. That was because deaf people recognised that the Government amendment was a major achievement brought about by their campaign.
Many people have been prepared to ignore this problem. One deaf boy who wrote to the Deaf Broadcasting Association said that he tried all the time to lip-read what was being said on television but that sometimes people turned away. Far from turning away, my hon. and learned Friend has opened a door for that young boy and many others and we are grateful to him for that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: A word of appreciation to the Minister is in order, and I readily thank him for the help that he has given the hearing-impaired. I also pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for all his humane concern for them.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have contributed to the achievement of these amendments—not least all those who served on the Standing Committee. The Government's proposals go much further than seemed possible on Second Reading, which is very welcome, although the beneficiaries will have to wait some years for what they have sought for so long. The proposals vindicate a sustained campaign to make the Bill more acceptable to deaf people—a campaign that I am delighted to have been able to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington kindly referred to my interest in the matter, and the role that I played in working for tonight's outcome of the campaign. He also referred to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the chairman and the secretary of the all-party disablement group, which has played an important part in promoting the right of hearing-impaired people to lead fuller and more fulfilling lives.
Television is important in almost everyone's life nowadays, and exclusion from its benefits is a gratuitous further handicap for deaf people to have to bear. Sadly, all too few of those who are not hearing-impaired fail to realise that one of the most devastating additional handicap—over and above the sensory loss—is the extent of public ignorance about the social penalties imposed by deafness.
The amendments will, in time, reduce one of those penalties by allowing the hearing-impaired some of the benefits that everyone else takes for granted. I know that the BBC, which has already shown its concern for deaf people in many positive ways, will also do all that it can further to improve its contribution to making the deaf a part of, rather than apart from, a society in which they have an undoubted right to full citizenship.
All of us here have hearing-impaired people in our constituencies, and all of us know that they are entitled to the social equality that at present they are denied. The Bill, as amended, does not represent a millennium for deaf people, but it is a step forward for them, and one which I hope will soon lead to others on which they and their organisations have been, and will rightly go on insisting.

Mr. Mellor: I am deeply touched by the kind words that have been said about my role. I cannot think of a better cause to have advanced, and I am sure that all the effort that we have expended has been worthwhile.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised the question of the wording of the obligation after 1999. The aim is to ensure that that obligation continues, and I am more than happy to undertake to look at the wording again to make sure that it is as tightly cast as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 657, in page 28, line 15, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 16 and insert
`Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B), the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section'.

No. 658, in page 28, line 31, leave out 'this section' and insert
`the provision of Channel 5'.

No. 659, in page 28, line 33, leave out
in relation to Channel 5,'.

No. 660, in page 28, line 34, leave out 'in that service' and insert 'on Channel 5'.

No. 661, in page 28, line 40, at end insert—
`(2A) The Commission shall make such determinations under subsection (2) as are appropriate to secure that, subject to subsection (2B), the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section represents—

(a) in the case of Channel 3 services—
(i) for the year 1998, fifty per cent. of the average number of hours in a week during which programmes were, during the year 1997, broadcast on Channel 3; and
(ii) for the year 1999 and each successive year, the greatest number of hours in a week that appears to the Commission to be reasonably practicable; and
(b) in the case of Channel 5—

(i) for the year which includes the fifth anniversary of the date of the commencement of the provision of Channel 5, fifty per cent. of the average number of hours in a week during which programmes were, during the year preceding that year, broadcast on Channel 5; and

(ii) for the year following that year and each successive year, the greatest number of hours in a week that appears to the Commission to be reasonably practicable.

(2B) In the case of—

(a) a Channel 3 service provided as mentioned in section 14(3) or (4), or
(b) a Channel 5 service provided as mentioned in section 26(2A),

the relevant minimum number of hours in a week for the purposes of this section shall for any year be such number of hours in a week as the Commission shall determine, being such proportion of the number of hours in a week determined by the Commission for that year under subsection (2)(a) or (b) (as the case may be) as appears to them to be appropriate.'.

No. 662, in page 28, line 41, leave out 'a' and insert any'.

No. 663, in page 28, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert
`this section (other than one under subsection (2)(a)(i) or (b)(i))—'.

No. 664, in page 28, line 44, leave out
'the licence to provide that service of their'
and insert
`every licence to which the determination relates of the'.

No. 665, in page 28, line 46, leave out first 'the' and insert 'every such'.

No. 666, in page 28, line 48, leave out '(1) and insert '(1)(a)(i)'.

No. 667, in page 28, line 49, at end insert—

'(3A) Where any week falls

(a) partly within one year to which subsection (2)(a) or (b) applies, and
(b) partly within another such year
that week shall be treated for the purposes of this section as Falling wholly within the earlier of those years.'.

No. 668, in page 28, line 49, at end insert—
'(3B) The holder of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall not impose charges for providing subtitling in respect of any programme broadcast in his licensed service.'.

No. 669, in page 29, line I, leave out subsection (4) and nsert—
'(4) In this section—

"on Channel 3" means in Channel 3 services taken as a whole;
"on Channel 5" means in the television service referred to in section 26(1), taken as a whole;
"subtitling" means subtitling for the deaf, whether provided by means of a teletext service or otherwise.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 33

PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS

Amendments made: No. 670, in page 29, line 5, leave out may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 671, in page 29, line 17, at end insert—
'(3) Any rules made by the Commission for the purposes of this section may make different provision for different cases circumstances.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 34

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PROGRAMME SCHEDULES

Amendment made: No. 672, in page 29, line 21, leave out 'shall' and insert `may'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 35

POWER TO DIRECT LICENSEE TO PUBLISH APOLOGY OR NOT TO REPEAT PROGRAMME

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 405, in page 29, line 33, leave out 'broadcasting of an apology' and insert
'inclusion in the licensed service of a correction or apology (or both)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 406, 407 and 472 to 474.

11 pm

Mr. Mellor: These amendments make some changes in the penalties for licensees who fail to abide by licence conditions. In addition to, or in place of, requiring an apology, the ITC may require the licensee to issue a correction where misinformation has been given in a programme. The amendments also deal with the situation in which correction rather than an apology is needed, and empower the authority to determine the sort of apology that would be appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 406, in page 29, line 35, leave out 'an apology' and insert—
'a correction or apology (or both)'.

No. 407, in page 29, line 40, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 408, in page 30, line 8, leave out from '4' to end of line 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 409 to 414.

Mr. Mellor: Here we have added a ground for the ITC to revoke licences. In addition to revocation for giving false information in an application, the licence may also be revoked if an applicant withholds information with intent to mislead the ITC. Some consequential changes are also made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36

POWER TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL PENALTY OR SHORTEN LICENCE PERIOD

Amendments made: No. 409, in page 30, line 15, after 'pay', insert within a specified period,'.

No. 410, in page 31, line 4, leave out from beginning to `and' in line 5.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 37

POWER TO REVOKE CHANNEL 3 OR 5 LICENCE

Amendments made: No. 411, in page 31, line 36, leave out from 'particular,' to end of line 38 and insert
', or
(b) that, in connection with his application for the licence, the holder of such a licence withheld any material information with the intention of causing them to be misled,'.
No. 380, in page 32, line 3, leave out 'Channel 3' and insert `such'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 38

DOMESTIC AND NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 501, in page 32, line 23, after '(a)', insert `(subject to subsection (2A))'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 502.

Mr. Mellor: These amendments change the definition of a non-domestic satellite service so that in the case of services uplinked from the United Kingdom it applies only when the programmes included in it are provided by a person who is neither in the United Kingdom nor in a prescribed country. This is because under the Council of Europe convention any service provided by a person in a prescribed country will have to be regulated under the law of that country.

Mr. Darling: I do not think that we have any quarrel with the amendment, but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what a prescribed country is, or which they are. I think that I understand the basis of the amendment, but I should like to be sure of it.

Mr. Mellor: The prescribed countries are those which have signed the convention, so there is a reciprocal pattern of enforcement.

Mr. Darling: On that basis, I do not quarrel with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 502, in page 32, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to a service if and to the extent that the programmes included in it—

(a) consist of material provided for inclusion in it (complete and unchanged) by a person in a prescribed country; and
(b) are intended for general reception in a prescribed country (and are not intended for such reception in the United Kingdom).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 39

LICENSING ETC. OF DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 381, in page 33, line 21, at end insert—
`(bb) section 18 shall have effect with the omission of subsection (4B);'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 41

LICENSABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES

Amendments made: No 731, in page 34, line 19, leave out 'simultaneous'.

No 503, in page 34, line 25, after 'group', insert 'or groups'.

No 732, in page 34, line 29, at end insert
'and whether the programmes are to be so conveyed as mentioned in paragraph (a) for simultaneous reception or for reception at different times in response to requests made by different users of the service.'.

No 504, in page 35, line 1, after 'who', insert
`does either or both of the following things, that is to say—(a)'.

No 505, in page 35, line 2, at end insert
`, or (b) runs a telecommunication system which is so used,'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 42

LICENSING ETC. OF LICENSABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES

Amendments made: No 506, in page 35, line 30, leave out '6(1) ' and insert
'6'.

No 507, in page 35, line 31, leave out from `effect' to end of line 32 and insert
'subject to the modifications specified in subsection (4A).
(4A) The modifications of section 6 are as follows—
(a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of subsection (1)—'.

No. 508, in page 35, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
`(b) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
(2) In applying subsection (1)(c) to any licensed service, the programmes included in that service shall be taken as a whole.";
and
(c) in subsection (3), paragraph (a)(i) and the words "in other respects" in paragraph (a)(ii) shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 43

ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 509, in page 36, line 10, leave out `on' and insert 'within'.

No. 510, in page 36, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.

No. 511, in page 36, line 12, after '59(1)' insert
'other than a frequency which, in pursuance of section 66(2), is assigned by the Commission to a local delivery service (within the meaning of Part II)'.

No. 512, in page 36, line 15, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 513, in page 36, line 17, leave out 'assigned under section 59(1)' and insert
'falling within subsection (1)(a) above'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 44

LICENSING OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Amendment proposed: No. 673, in page 37, line 15, after `(1)', insert 'Subject to subsection (1A),'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 674.

Mr. Rowlands: The amendments involve teletexting, and there are other aspects of subtitling. I apologise for raising yet another S4C point at this late hour, but there is the issue of subtitling in English from Welsh programmes.
I know that S4C has writen to the Minister to tell him that it will have a 75 per cent. subtitling programme, which is way beyond the statutory requirement. I suggest that the Minister considers the statutory requirement to ensure that, where there is a wish to subtitle in English when showing Welsh programmes, there will be no problems with monopolies, such as teletext, which makes expansion difficult. I think that the Minister and I agree that S4C should be able to expand English subtitling of Welsh-language programmes.

Mr. Mellor: Without notice, I cannot be as categorical as I would wish to be. What the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has said sounds all

right to me, but I shall check the position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken quite some trouble over these S4C matters. I shall drop him a note.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for having responded to the campaign for the preservation of teletext on Channels 3 and 4. The issue led to a considerable argument in Committee, and it should not pass without comment on Report. The campaign will continue outside this place. I think that much was done in Committee to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that we needed to see an opportunity for the preservation of a teletext service on Channels 3 and 4, which may or may not be Oracle, for the many millions who benefit from it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 514, in page 37, line 17, leave out 'assigned under section 59(1)' and insert 'falling within section 43(1)(a)'.

No. 674, in line 24, at end insert—
'(1A) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that a teletext service is provided on so much of the spare capacity available for the provision of additional services on—

(a) frequencies on which Channel 3 services are provided, or
(b) frequencies on which Channel 4 is provided, or both, as the Secretary of State may approve.'.

No. 515, in line 26, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 516, in line 27, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 127, in page 38, line 4, after 'facilities', insert reasonably'.

No. 128, in line 5, at end insert—
'(5A) Any person who grants to any other person access to Facilities in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (5) may require that other person to pay a reasonable charge in respect thereof; and any dispute as to the amount of any such charge shall be determined by the Commission.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 45

APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 129, in page 38, line 18, after 'licence', insert
and specifying the closing date for such applications'.

No. 130, in line 22, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 23.

No. 131, in line 34, leave out 'and the deposit'.

No. 132, in line 35, leave out 'and (ii)'.

No. 517, in line 36, leave out from 'plan' to 'indicating' n line 37.

No. 518, in line 38, leave out 'he' and insert 'the applicant'.

No. 519, in line 40, leave out 'he is able to do so' and insert `known to the applicant'.

No. 133, in page 39, line 7, leave out subsections (6) to (9).

No. 134, in line 33, at end insert—
'(10) the Commission shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

(a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;
(b) particulars of the technical plan submitted by him under subsection (3)(b); and
(c) such other information connected with his application as the Commission consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 46

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR, AND AWARDING OF, LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 520, in page 39, line 43, leave out
'he would be able to maintain his proposed service'

and insert
'the services proposed to be provided under the licence would be capable of being maintained'.

No. 135, in page 40, line 7, at end insert—
`(aa) subsection (3A) shall be omitted;'.

No. 136, in page 40, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) If at any time after an additional services licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

(a) that person indicates to the Commission that he does not intend to provide the services in question, or
(b) the Commission for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide those services once the licence has come into force,

then, subject to subsection (5A)—

(i) the Commission shall revoke the licence, and
(ii) section 17 (as applied by subsection (3) above) shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.

(5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Commission have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the services in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 47

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 41, line 19, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 48

DURATION OF LICENCES, AND RENEWAL OF LICENCES FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES ON ASSIGNED FREQUENCIES

Amendments madeu: No. 521, in page 42, line 13, leave out
'an additional service which would differ'

and insert
'any additional service which would differ in any material respect'.

No. 522, in line 14, leave out from 'licence' to end of line 18.

No. 138, in line 18, at end insert
`, or
(c) they propose to determine that all or part of the spare capacity allocated by the licence is to cease to be available for the provision of additional services in order that it may be used by any relevant person for the purpose of enhancing the technical quality of his television broadcasting service;
and in paragraph (c) "relevant person" means the person providing a television broadcasting service on whose frequency the licensed service has been provided.'.

No. 523, in line 35, leave out 'service' and insert 'services'.

No. 139, in line 43, at end insert—
'(a)'.

No, 140, in line 47, at end insert

'; and
(b) section 46(5) and (5A) shall apply in relation to any time after the renewal of the licence but before the beginning of the period for which it has been renewed as those provisions apply in relation to any time after an additional services licence has been granted but before it has come into force (except that section 46(5) shall so apply with the omission of paragraph (ii)).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 51

WELSH AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE AS SIANEL PEDWAR CYMRU

Amendment made: No. 262, in page 43, line 45, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Act'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 4

THE WELSH AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 281, in page 154, leave out lines 16 to 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 52

FUNCTION AND DUTIES OF WELSH AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 524, in page 44, line 9, leave out 'programme' and insert 'broadcasting'.

No. 263, in line 29, leave out from 'normally' to end of line 33 and insert
'a programme which is being, has been or is to be broadcast on Channel 4.'.

No. 525, in line 33, at end add—
'(4) In this section and section 53 "programme" does not include an advertisement.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 53

SOURCES OF PROGRAMMES FOR S4C

Amendments made: No. 264, in page 44, line 40, leave out subsection (2).

No. 265, in line 43, leave out from '(3)' to 'it' in line 44.

No. 266, in page 45, line 5, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'section 52(3)'.

No. 267, in line 7, leave out from 'which' to end of line 8 and insert
`are required by the Authority for the purpose of complying with that provision.'.

No. 268, in line 8, at end insert—
'(4) The programmes broadcast on S4C may, to the extent that they are not provided under subsection (1) or (3), be obtained by the Welsh Authority from such persons as they think fit.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

No. 572, in page 45, line 8, at end insert—
'(5) Where any programmes provided under subsection (3) each form part of a series of programmes, the Welsh Authority shall ensure that the intervals between those programmes when broadcast on S4C normally correspond to the intervals between them when broadcast on Channel 4.
(6) The Welsh Authority shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, advance notice of the programmes schedules for the programme to be broadcast on S4C.'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

Clause 54

REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN RELATION TO S4C PROGRAMMES IN WELSH

Amendments made: No. 269, in page 45, line 9, leave out subsection (1).

No. 270, in clause 54, page 45, line 11, leave out in relation to the relevant service—' and insert
`that the following requirements are complied with in relation to S4C, namely—'.

No. 271, in page 45, line 21, at end insert
', by using images of very brief duration or by any other means,'.

No. 272, in page 45, line 29, leave out
`included in the relevant service'
and insert 'broadcast on S4C'.

No. 273, in page 45, line 37, leave out 'the relevant service' and insert `S4C'.

No. 274, in page 45, line 39, leave out 'the relevant service' and insert `S4C'.

No. 275, in page 45, line 42, leave out 'the relevant service' and insert `S4C'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 55

ADVERTISING ON S4C

No. 276, in page 46, line 12, after 'in', insert ', or in connection with,'.[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 56

FUNDING OF WELSH AUTHORITY

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 277, in page 46, line 19, leave out from 'shall' to second 'the' in line 20 and insert
'before the beginning of each of those years ("the relevant year")—
(a) estimate'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 278 to 280 and 526.

Mr. Mellor: These amendments create the concept of an interim payment by S4C—I am sorry, I mean to S4C. There is an important difference, as I would expect a Welshman to notice. I was just checking that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was still with us.
The amendments create the concept of an interim payment to S4C by the Secretary of State based on an estimate of total television revenues, that estimate to be made by the ITC. It would be adjusted up or down in the light of the actual figure for the year in question, once that had been formally calculated. We thought about this matter, and we believe that it is the most practical way to do that. For example, it will not be clear by the beginning of 1993 what the revenues were for 1992. Indeed, it might be well into 1993 before the figure emerges. This mechanism is well tried in relation to the ITV levy administered by the IBA. Everyone thinks that it will be a good way to do this.
On amendment No. 526, we have been concerned to give S4C a reasonable degree of stability so that it can plan its future——

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Annunciator is only just showing my hon. and learned

Friend's name, even though he has been on his feet for three or four minutes. I apologise to the House for disturbing the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are galloping, and these matters are therefore difficult. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that I am going too fast.

Mr. Steen: Not at all.

Mr. Mellor: I am always pleased if, in life, I can pass as someone else. I am not terribly bothered if my name is not on the Annunciator.
We have been concerned to give S4C reasonable stability so that it can plan its future. Hence the provision in clause 56(5) that prevents changes to the percentage base on which S4C's income is assessed until the end of 1997. We accept that adverse circumstances could arise that would make an increase in the level of S4C's income essential so that it could meet its commitments. Amendment No. 526 enables the Secretary of State to make such a change by an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before the end of 1997. In other words, it is a way of giving S4C an uplift if it is needed. Obviously, we hope that it will not: it is a safety net.

Mr. Rowlands: This is a useful and significant amendment. We discussed this matter in Committee, when I and other hon. Members proposed a possible safety net For S4C. The Minister rightly pointed out that problems could arise because of the complicated potential increase in the costs of transmission. I hope that the amendment is 3esigned to ensure that, if transmission costs in the Principality are higher, the appropriate adjustment will be made.
There is also the matter of the total advertising revenue. When we initially sought a safety net, we made the point that the projections for advertising revenue suggested that there might be some problems.
I am hoping that the Minister will confirm with a nod that the amendment allows him to take into account possible transmission costs over and above those upon which the calculation has been based, but also that, if advertising revenues fall, in the quid pro quo S4C will not lose out overall.

Mr. Fisher: I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister for the amendment. It is a constructive move and will be greatly appreciated in the Principality. Perhaps the Minister will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has had a substantial and constructive effect on the Bill on behalf of the people of Wales.
The Minister will note, too, that we have not been joined on Report by either of the Plaid Cymru Members. People in Wales may be surprised at their absence. It is good for the people of Wales that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has been protecting their interests throughout all stages of the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: I have already paid tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for his assiduity on this issue.
Only the transmission costs are covered in the amendment, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and set put the thinking behind it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 278, in page 46, line 21, at end insert—
(b) notify the Secretary of State of that estimated amount;
and the Secretary of State shall at the beginning of the relevant year pay to the Welsh Authority, by way of an interim payment for that year, an amount representing 3·2 per cent. of that estimated amount.
(2A) Once the Commission have finally determined the amount of the total television revenues for a particular year, they shall notify the Secretary of State of the amount so determined by them; and on receiving any such notification the Secretary of State shall, in respect of the year following that year—

(a) pay to the Welsh Authority any amount payable by him by virtue of subsection (1), after taking into account the interim payment made for that year under subsection (2), or
(b) notify the Welsh Authority of the amount of any overpayment made by him by means of any such interim payment.

(2B) The Welsh Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving any notification under subsection (2A)(b), pay to the Secretary of State the amount specified in the notification.'.

No. 279, in line 32, after 'to', insert 'estimate or'.

No. 280, in line 38, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'each of subsections (1) and (2)'.

No. 526, in line 40, at end insert—
'unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is necessary to make the order having regard to the cost to the Authority of transmitting S4C.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 59

ASSIGNMENT OF FREQUENCIES BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 141, in page 47, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) Any frequency assigned by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may be so assigned for use only in such area as may be specified by the Secretary of State when making the assignment.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 60

REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSMISSION OF CHANNELS 3, 4 AND 5 AND S4C

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, amendment No. 527, in page 47, line 39, leave out 'direct' and insert 'by order specify'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 489, in page 47, line 43, at end insert
'(1A) Every Channel 3 licence shall include the arrangements for charging for transmission of the service, such arrangements to be based upon the licensees's share of Channel 3 qualifying revenue, or share of population, as shall be recommended by the Commission and subject to regulation by the Office of Telecommunications for the duration of the Channel 3 licence and any extension thereof.'.
Government amendments Nos. 528 to 530.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who was a constructive member of the Committee, was concerned—very properly as he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—to ensure that parliamentary procedures were put into the Bill wherever appropriate. These amendments put arrangements for a negative resolution procedure into Clause 60. I hope that that will be welcome

to the House, which I know would agree with the hon. Gentleman that wherever possible there should he parliamentary scrutiny of such activities.

Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the amendments. I only regret that the Minister—I hope that he does not think me churlish—is not in a position to be so forthcoming about the arrangements for cross-subsidisation of Channel 3 licences in the Bill as he was earlier for S4C.
However, there is a proposal in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham—amendment 489—and I hope that in response to a debate on that the Minister will give some assurance.

Mr. Steen: It is not West Ham—it is South Hams.

Mr. Maclennan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. At this time of night I am looking forward to my ham and eggs.
The general principle of cross-subsidy has been accepted by the Government, but there are many questions in the minds of companies about how it is to operate. I hope that we shall hear a little more about that aspect tonight.

Mr. Steen: I wish to speak to amendment 489 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). This is an important amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about transmission arrangements, to be helpful to the House, as he usually is.
The House will know that, since the origins of ITV, the IBA has been responsible for transmission and has charged ITV companies for the costs involved. The Government intend that the IBA transmission system should be privatised by 1991–92 to a single national contractor.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that the monitor is now showing the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That shows how very well served we are by our staff.

Mr. Steen: That is a very astute observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was talking about transmission arrangements. It is a serious matter, and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be listening carefully.
By 1991–92, the IBA transmission system should be privatised to a single national contractor, and the charges should be regulated by Oftel. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has stated that, until 1996, those charges will be based upon the share of the network advertising revenue, which broadly reflects the population. However, no arrangements have been specified for the period after 1996.
In the south-west, there are 81 transmitters, whereas there are two in London. As things stand, until 1996, the smaller television companies will be charged a percentage of their advertising revenue. The charges will not be based on the number of transmitters. Companies will be asked to put in for the franchise on the basis that they should be able to cost for 10 years, yet they have no idea how much they will be charged after 1996 and whether the charge will be based on advertising revenue or transmitter costs. If it is transmitter costs, areas such as the south-west, which


has a hilly terrain, could be charged on the number of transmitters—81, while London has only two. I invite the Minister to consider introducing an amendment in another place extending the period from 1996 to 2002 or specifying that the charge will be based not on the number of transmitters but on the advertising revenue or the population that the companies serve.
The amendment is important. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will realise the seriousness of going blind into franchises in some of the smaller rural areas.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I recognise the great difficulty in tying down privatised companies for 10 years. The companies will no longer be public bodies, and it is difficult to tie down public limited companies for 10 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, there will be extreme difficulties for those bidding for franchises.
In my constituency, we have had great difficulty in getting Channel 4 to all the villages, because Devon has many hills, dales and tiny villages. I am most grateful to the IBA for the service that it has provided in the past three years in bringing Channel 4 to Chagford, Taddiport and other villages that right hon. and hon. Members know only when they visit Devon on holiday. Most of those villages can now get Channel 4, although I understand that coverage is not yet total.
I should be sorry if, in the new era of untied broadcasting, which I welcome, the rural areas lost out and, perhaps because of loss of transmission due to high costs, could no longer share in the fulness and richness of the television service on offer. I recognise that it is probably an intractable problem, but I put it before my hon. and learned Friend to let him know of our concern.

Mr. Mellor: My two hon. Friends will be aware that the Government are sensitive to these matters and are making provision to take account of topographical difficulties that I well recall from my youth in the west country. My hon. Friends moved to the west country, whereas I moved from it; I do not know which of us had the better deal.
The reason for not specifying at this stage the arrangements for after 1996 is that, by that time, we intend that the BBC transmission system will be privatised. It will then be necessary to consider the future arrangements, but obviously regard will be given to transmission costs in sparsely populated areas. We have a commitment to maintain the transmission system. Our ambition is not to leave it at 99·3 per cent. but to increase it. Any arrangements in 1996 will be looked at in the light of a commitment that successive Governments will be only pleased to give—I certainly give it for this one—to the maintenance, indeed the enhancement, of a truly national system. That requires us to take account of the difficulties of rural areas and their transmission problems.

Mr. Fisher: So that the House is not misled into believing that this problem affects only west country constituencies, may I associate the Labour party with the constructive and sensible comments made by the hon. Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)?
Like them, we are pleased about the Minister's commitment to the maintenance of a national network.
That is a different position from the one that the Government held a few months ago. We welcome their change of heart and commitment. But that is not exactly the point that hon. Members have been making. They mentioned not only the maintenance of a national network but the method of apportioning cost. That should not be Rine on a transmission basis, because it is a problem not anly in the west country but in Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has left the Chamber—and many parts of Scotland, where transmitters are dense on the ground, unlike London. Apportioning cost on a transmission basis would have a disproportionate effect. An assurance from the Government, perhaps in another place, would be appreciated.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 528, in page 47, line 45 leave out
direct that that period shall'

and insert
'by order provide for that period to'.

No. 529, in page 47, line 46, leave out 'his direction' and nsert 'the order'.

No. 530, in page 48, line 18, at end insert—
`(7) Any order under this section shall be subject to mnulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

No. 480, in clause 62, in page 48, line 44, at end insert—
'(3A) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as applying to my amount which is required by the Commission for the making of an adjustment in respect of an overpayment made Dy any person.'.

No. 481, in clause 114, in page 88, line 9, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as applying to my amount which is required by the Authority for the making of an adjustment in respect of an overpayment made Dy any person.'.

No. 142, in clause 63, in page 49, line 15, leave out, under the supervision of the Commission,'.

No. 143, in page 49, line 23, leave out `possible' and nsert Is reasonably practicable'.

No. 144, in page 49, line 25, after '(1)', insert 'or (3)'.

No. 145, in page 49, line 25, after 'out', insert ', under the supervision of the Commission,'.

No. 146, in page 49, line 28, leave out from 'is' to 'to' n line 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 66

LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 147, in page 50, line 39, after second 'service', insert 'provided by any person'.

No. 148, in page 50, line 40, after 'system', insert
'whether run by that or any other person)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 67

LICENSING OF LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 149, in page 51, line 44, after the', insert 'first'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 68

APPLICATIONS OF LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 150, in page 52, line 23, after licence', insert
and specifying the closing date for such applications'.

No. 151, in page 52, line 27, leave out from beginning. 0 'and' in line 28.

No. 76, in page 52, line 39, leave out 'and the deposit'.

No. 77, in page 52, line 40, leave out 'and (ii)'.

No. 154, in page 53, line 4, leave out 'and'.

No. 155, in page 53, line 8, at end insert
'and
(e) such other information as the Commission may reasonably require for the purpose of considering the application.'.

No. 156, in page 53, line 11, leave out 'or (d)' and insert (d) or (e)'.

No. 157, in page 53, line 15, leave out subsections (6) to (9).

No. 158, in page 53, line 40, at end insert—
'(9A) The Commission shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

(a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;
(b) particulars of the technical plan submitted by him under subsection (3)(b); and
(c) such other information connected with his application as the Commission consider appropriate.'.

No. 159, in page 53, line 43, after 'amount', insert 'of money'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 70

AWARD OF LICENCE TO PERSON SUBMITTING HIGHEST CASH BID

No. 160, in page 54, line 35, leave out
'the amounts specified in the cash bids submitted by'.

No. 161, in page 54, line 36, leave out 'are the same,' and insert—
'have submitted cash bids specifying an identical amount which is higher than the amount of any other cash bid submitted in respect of the licence, then (unless they propose to exercise their power under subsection (3) in relation to the licence)'.

No. 162, in page 54, line 41, after 'may', insert
'disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) and'.

No. 163, in page 54, line 41, leave out
`other than the one who'
and insert 'who has not'.

No. 164, in page 54, line 43, leave out `do so' and insert
`award the licence to that applicant'.

No. 165, in page 54, line 44, leave out
'who submitted the highest bid',

and insert
`to whom (apart from this subsection) they would award the licence in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.

No. 166, in page 54, line 47, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.

No. 168, in page 55, line 18, leave out
'person who submitted the highest bid,'

and insert
`applicant to whom (apart from any such requirement) they would have awarded it in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.

No. 169, in page 55, line 20, at end insert
'; and any such rules may provide for the awarding of licences by reference to orders of preference notified to the Commission by applicants at the time of making their applications.'.

No. 170, in page 55, line 25, leave out
'the applicant who submitted the highest bid'

and insert 'an applicant'.

No. 171, in page 55, line 26, leave out from `if to end of line 31 and insert
'that person had not made an application for the licence.'.

No. 172, in page 55, line 33, at end insert

', as soon as reasonably practicable after awarding the licence'.

No. 173, in page 55, line 36, leave out
'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.

No. 174, in page 55, line 43, leave out 'and'.

No. 175, in page 55, line 45, leave out
'other than the one who'
and insert 'who has not'.

No. 176, in page 55, line 47, at end insert
'; and (d) such other information as the Commission consider appropriate.'.

No. 176, in page 56, line 1, leave out subsection (12) and insert—
'(12) If at any time after a local delivery licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

(a) that person indicates to the Commission that he does not intend to provide the service in question, or
(b) the Commission for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide that service once the licence has come into force,
then, subject to subsection (13)—

(i) the Commission shall revoke the licence, and
(ii) this section shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.
(13) Subsection (12) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Commission have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the service in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 71

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 178, in page 57, line 4, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 72

DURATION AND RENEWAL OF LOCAL DELIVERY LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 57, line 12, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifteen'.

No. 180, in page 58, line 20 after 'section', insert—
'(a)'.

No. 181, in page 58, line 24, at end insert—
; and
(b) section 70(12) and (13) shall apply in relation to any time after the renewal of the licence but before the beginning of the period for which it has been renewed as those provisions apply in relation to any time after a local delivery licence has been granted but before it has come into force (except that section 70(12) shall so apply with the omission of paragraph (ii )).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 73

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO RELAYING OF FOREIGN SATELLITE PROGRAMMES

Amendment made: No. 182, in page 58, line 37, at end insert—
'(2A) Where any licensed local delivery service includes advertisements inserted by the person providing the service, sections 8 and 9 shall have effect as if the delivery of those


advertisements constituted the provision of a service licensed under Part I of this Act and that person were the holder of a licence in force under that Part.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 77

THE RADIO AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 415, in page 60, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 6

THE RADIO AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 228, in page 159, leave out lines 16 to 19.

No. 479, in page 160, leave out lines 6 to 11.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 78

REGULATION BY AUTHORITY OF INDEPENDENT RADIO SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 416, in page 60, line 26, leave out `so provided' and insert
'provided from places in the United Kingdom'.

No. 531, in page 60, line 41, after 'service', insert '(other than one provided by the BBC)'.

No. 532, in page 61, line 2, leave out or ranges of frequencies,'.

No. 533, in page 61, line 3, leave out 'or range of frequencies'.

No. 534, in page 61, line 6, leave out ', or range of frequencies,'.

No. 535, in page 61, line 10, leave out 'or range of frequencies'.

No. 536, in page 61, line 11, leave out
', or (as the case may be) any frequency falling within that range,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 79

LICENSING FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 422, in page 61, leave out line 19 and insert—
'(a) a diversity of national services each catering for tastes and interests different from those catered for by the others and of which—

(i) one is a service the greater part of which consists in the broadcasting of spoken material, and
(ii) another is a service which consists, wholly or mainly, in the broadcasting of music other than pop music; and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take amendment No. 581, in page 61, line 24, after 'of', insert 'national'.
Government amendments Nos. 423 and 424.
Amendment No. 588, in clause 92, page 69, line 43,
leave out
'the service to be provided'
and insert
'they believe it is technically possible for a service to be provided and which will be at least the same as the area covered by an equivalent national service provided by the BBC'.
Government amendment No. 425.
Amendment No. 573, in page 69, line 4, at end insert—

'(iii) the type of service to be maintained and the nature of the differentiation between it and other national radio services.'.
Amendment No. 590, in page 70, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) In association with the notice referred to in subsection (1) the authority shall publish illustrative guidelines which shall include an indication of the range of programmes which the Authority expect applicants to include in their programme services.'.
Amendment No. 589, in page 70, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 574, in page 70, line 19, at end insert—
'(c) The need for variety in radio services and the nature of the audience to which each national service is to be primarily directed.'.
Government amendments Nos. 428 and 431.
Amendment No. 94, in page 70, line 26, after 'interests', insert
'and which shall include in particular, news and current affairs, religious and social action programmes in such form as may be appropriate to the general nature of the service provided.'.
Government amendments Nos. 440 and 441.

Mr. Mellor: These amendments are important because they deal with quite major changes to national commercial radio. With the approbation of the House, we have moved away from an internal diversity test under which we might have ended up with three national radio channels broadly the same and not necessarily with great breadth to them. We have substituted for that an external diversity test with requirements set by the Radio Authority so that one will have to be a largely speech-based station, one will have to be a station consisting of music other than pop music—I make no bones about hoping that that means classical music—and the last station is not specified but almost inevitably will broadcast pop music.

Mr. Fisher: That is defeatist.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) may call it defeatist, but we must acknowledge that there is a large audience for pop music.
The effect of the proposals is that we have a remit for national commercial radio to which people can look forward and think will make some considerable use of the potential of the airwaves that have been vacated for that purpose. We could not have been so confident about that under the old arrangements and I am pleased to have made that change.

Mr. Maclennan: I remember our debate in Committee on this subject and how the minds of members of the Committee moved from internal diversity requirements to the arrangements outlined by the Minister. The arrangements will be widely welcomed because they promise that the public will be able to identify more readily, as they can with BBC national radio channels, the kind of programmes to which they want to listen.
I wish to refer to an issue contained in amendments Nos. 588, 589 and 590 which stand in my name. I am concerned by the language of the clause which sets up the national independent radio channels in that it is envisaged hat transmission may not actually be national. My amendments are designed to ensure that national radio channels are indeed national and that they provide at least he same cover as that provided by the BBC. As the Bill is


drafted, there are strong hints that a national station could effectively opt out of transmitting to far-flung areas, because of the cost of transmission.
My amendments seek to make it a statutory requirement that coverage should be as far as technically possible, as opposed to what is financially most beneficial. I shall be relieved if the Minister assures me that that is what is intended. However, as the Bill is drafted, it appears that a national provider could opt out of covering parts of the country which at present enjoy national BBC coverage.

Mr. Fisher: The House will welcome what the Minister said about defining the characteristics and remit of the three stations. Before that is completely cast in stone, will he bear in mind the case that we put in Committee for putting the remit of one of the national stations on a Channel 4 publishing house basis? Not only has that worked well in television—there is no reason to suppose that it would not work well in radio—but it does several other things.
Both Opposition and Conservative Members have expressed anxieties about the financial future and viability of community stations and some local radio stations. A Channel 4 type national radio station would provide a marketplace and national forum for programmes all over the country and allow them to be broadcast. It would also provide a marketplace for those companies and a source of income and promotion. At the same time, it would provide a marketplace for independent producers in radio.
When he was formerly at the Home Office, as well as in his present incumbency, the Minister has been in the forefront of promoting the cause of independent producers in television. There is also a great future, both in Britain and internationally, for independent producers in radio. The only way to release the potential of independent radio production companies, which could even be subsets of independent television producers, would be to create a Channel 4 type structure for one of the stations. I commend that idea to the Minister. Perhaps, as the Bill passes through its remaining stages, he will give it further thought. Both on cultural and economic grounds, there is a good case to be made for that remit.

Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful for the comments of both the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). In reply to the latter, there is nothing to stop someone applying on the basis that he desires. The question whether we should prescribe it is more difficult. I should like to reflect on what he said. There will be nothing to stop someone casting their application in that form. That would certainly be an interesting form in which to do it.
I understand what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland means. He rightly wants to protect the interests of his constituency, which is in an area which is not one of the easiest to transmit to. I too should like to see a national station with universal coverage. However, that was not achieved overnight by BBC radio. Some people find the economics of national commercial radio rather doubtful. Therefore, it is a matter that we shall leave to the Radio Authority, which is presently considering the complex question of coverage planning for the new national networks. It is a matter for it, not for me. I envisage that

it will want coverage of about 70 per cent. immediately. As the station becomes successful, it is hoped that it will build up the coverage.
The matter can be explored further with the Radio Authority. I do not want to be the bringer of bad news but it would not be easy to guarantee 100 per cent. coverage straight away. It would be wrong of me to stand at the Dispatch Box and mislead the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House. I find the Minister's answer rather disturbing, and it will take a number of people by surprise. What have been heralded as three new national radio stations are, initially, to cover only 70 per cent. of the country. I hope that another place will give serious consideration to the implications of that.
I wonder whether a reason for such coverage is the unwillingness of the Government to entertain other amendments that I moved at an earlier stage on the cross-subsidy of transmission costs. It is desirable that we should use our existing transmission arrangements. If it is technically possible to carry signals from one end of the country to the other, I hope that that will be done, notwithstanding the attenuation of some of the lines.
It is clearly too late in our deliberation on the Bill to effect a change in the Government's mind, but I hope that the matter will be considered in another place with great interest.

Mr. Cryer: Powers are included in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend clause 79(2)(a), which allows certain variations on the national services. The proposed amendment No. 422 is welcome. What is even more welcome is the fact that any amendment to the Bill must come back to the House and be subject to an affirmative order.
I commend the Minister's attitude to other Departments that seem to want to change primary legislation—too often, I fear—without, in some instances, a further reference to the House. If a change is made via an affirmative order, it means that the Minister remains accountable to some degree, and that is welcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 417, in page 61, line 27, leave out
'between persons providing licensed services'
and insert
'in the provision of such services and services connected with them.'.

No. 423, in page 61, line 28, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of subsection (2)(a) as he considers appropriate—

(a) for including in that provision a requirement that one of the national services there referred to should be a service of a particular description, or
(b) for removing such a requirement from that provision;
and (without prejudice to the generality of section 178(2)(b)) any such order may make such consequential amendments of section 92(1)(b)(iii) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (4) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 613, in page 61, line 28, at end insert—
'(3A) Subsection (3)(b) shall not be construed as affecting the discharge by the Director General of Fair Trading, the


Secretary of State or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of any of his or their functions in connection with competition.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 80

LICENCES UNDER PART III

Amendments made: No. 537, in page 61, line 35, at end insert
'; and (without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision) a licence may be so granted for the provision of a service which to any extent consists in the simultaneous broadcasting of different programmes on different frequencies.'.

No. 418, in page 62, line 19, at end insert—
'(7A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (7), the Authority shall not give their consent for the purposes of that subsection unless they are satisfied that any such other person would be in a position to comply with all of the conditions included in the licence throughout the remainder of the period for which it is to be in force.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 81

GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS.

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 63, line 10, leave out 'fee or'.

No. 124, in page 63, line I I, after 'be', insert
'in accordance with such tariff as may from time to time be fixed by the Authority; and the amount of any fee which is to be so paid by the holder of a licence of a particular class or description shall be'.

No. 125, in page 63, line 12, leave out 'licence holder' and insert
'holder of such a licence'.

No. 126, in page 63, line 14, at end insert—
'(3A) The tariff fixed under subsection (3) may specify different fees in relation to different cases or circumstances; and the Authority shall publish that tariff, and every revision of it, in such manner as they consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 84

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO LICENSED SERVICES

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 538, in page 65, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 29.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 539 and 419.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for what he said earlier. In the Bill we have made a serious effort to include parliamentary procedures in a number of instances that were not present before. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his persistent pressure on that point. At a similar hour towards the end of the Bill's Second Reading and its aftermath, I promised the hon. Gentleman to make such inclusions, and I hope that I have delivered on that promise six months later.
The first two amendments in the group remove an inconsistency in clause 84. At the moment, clause 84(3) refers to programmes taken as a whole, while subsection (4) refers to a series of programmes. We have taken out the reference to a series of programmes, since the two subsections would have made a different attempt to define the same concept. No substantive change has been made.
Amendment No. 419 honours an undertaking I gave in Committee, that the authority should be required, so far as reasonably practicable, to consult its licensees about the programme code as well as the advertising code in clause 87.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 539, in page 65, line 29, leave put 'in other respects'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 85

GENERAL CODE FOR PROGRAMMES

Amendment made: No. 419, in page 66, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Before drawing up or revising the code under this section the Authority shall (to such extent as they consider it reasonably practicable to do so) consult every person who is the holder of a licence under this Part.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 86

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 540, in page 66, line 35, at end nsert—
'(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion in a licensed service of any party political broadcast which complies with the rules (so far as applicable) made by the Authority for the purposes of section 100.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 87

CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 475, in page 67, leave out ine 11.

No. 476, in page 67, line 20, at end insert—
'and (to the extent that the Authority consider such consultation to be reasonably practicable) consultation with every person who is the holder of a licence under this Part.'.

No. 420, in page 67, line 41, after 'advertising', insert 'or sponsorship'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 89

USE BY AUTHORITY OF RECORDINGS ETC. TO MONITOR PROGRAMMES

Amendments made: No. 619, page 68, line 39, leave out
'may include conditions enabling the Authority to require' and insert 'shall include conditions requiring'.

No. 421, in page 68, line 41, leave out '90' and insert 42'.

No. 620, in page 68, line 44, leave out
'to produce any such recording to the Authority'
and insert
at the request of the Authority, to produce to them any such recording'.

No. 621, in page 68, line 46, leave out
'to produce to the Authority'
and insert
'at the request of the Authority, to produce to them'.

No. 622, in page 68, line 46, after 'script', insert 'or transcript'.

No. 234, in page 68, line 47, at end insert—
'(3) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as requiring he Authority, in the discharge of their duties under this Part is respects licensed services and the programmes included in hem, to listen to such programmes in advance of their being included in such services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 90

AUDIENCE RESEARCH

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 69, line 1, after 'ascertaining', insert —

`(a)'.

No. 236, in line 3, at end insert—

`(b) any effects of such programmes on the attitudes or behaviour of persons who listen to them; and
(c) the types of programme that members of the public would like to be included in licensed services.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 92

APPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 424, in page 68, line 41, leave out 'and'.

No. 425, in line 43, at end insert—

'(iii) if the service is to be one falling within section 79(2)(a)(i) or (ii), that the service is to be such a service, and
(iv) if there is any existing licensed national service, that the service is to be one which caters for tastes and interests different from those already catered for by any such service (as described in the notice);'.

No. 426, in line 44, after 'licence', insert
`and specifying the closing date for such applications'.

No. 427, in page 70, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 70, line 9, leave out
'in pursuance of section 96(1)(b)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 95, in line 27, leave out
`(c) the applicant's cash bid in respect of the licence;'

No. 97, in page 71, line 16, leave out from `part' to end of line 19 and insert
'''qualifying revenue" means all payments received or to be received by the licence holder for any accounting period—

(a) in consideration of the inclusion in the licensed service in that period of advertisements or other programmes, or
(b) in respect of charges made by him in that period for the reception of programmes included in that service.'.

No. 101, in clause 96, page 74, leave out from line 14 to line 33, and insert—
'an amount representing the percentage of qualifying revenue determined by the Secretary of State for each accounting period to be paid in equal annual instalments throughout the period for which the licence is in force.'.

Mr. Fisher: We covered this ground thoroughly in Committee, so I shall not detain the House and the Minister long, but we wish to put down a marker yet again to say that the Government have got it wrong in their determination to make money a substantial factor in the allocation of radio franchises. We had a long debate in Committee about the importance of a quality threshold for the national commercial radio stations, and the Minister said then that he believed that radio was different from television and there was not the same need for setting quality thresholds. We believed then that he was wrong, and we hoped that, when the Bill went to another place, that debate would be taken up.
I suspect that it would be over-optimistic to think that, since we concluded the Committee stage, the Minister has seen the error of his ways. In the many strong arguments that he made in defence of his position at various stages in Committee, that was not one of his finest moments. It is difficult for him to look squarely in the face those many hundreds of thousands—millions—of people in this country who care deeply about the quality of radio, and say that, when allocating franchises in radio, he does not believe that it is necessary to have a quality threshold, whereas he does accept that television is so important that it should have quality thresholds.
I think that, being a fair man, the Minister knows in his heart of hearts that that is wrong, and that there are millions of people for whom radio is a central part of their lives. It is important that the exciting potential of the three national stations that could add something to our radio culture should be given to the best broadcasters, and there should be a quality threshold that people applying for those franchises should have to overcome.
The Minister made a good case about the threshold in relation to television. It is every bit as true in relation to radio, and I urge him to give himself the space and time to find the words to come back to this matter, either now or later. In his heart of hearts, I think that he knows that it is important, and many people who believe in radio would appreciate it if he put down the marker that quality in radio was as important as quality in television.

Mr. Mellor: I certainly agree that quality is important. I think that the only issue is how best we attain it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for the understanding way in which he put his point. I appreciate that, although we have moved closer on some issues, there are others on which our positions remain apart. I cannot improve on, and certainly would not seek to repeat, the explanation that I gave in Committee, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's prediction that the other place will take an interest in the matter will undoubtedly prove true. I shall be following those discussions closely and will continue to evaluate the matter and other parts of the Bill as we progress.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 428, in page 70, line 21, at end insert—
`(aa) the applicant's proposals for providing a service that would both—

(i) comply with any requirement specified in the notice under subsection (1)(b)(iii) or (iv), and
(ii) consist of a diversity of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests;'.

No. 429, in page 70, line 22, leave out 'and the deposit'.

No. 430, in page 70, line 23, leave out `and(ii)'.

No. 431, in page 70, leave out lines 24 to 26.

No. 432, in page 70, line 26, at end insert—
`(ba) the applicant's proposals for training or retraining persons employed or to be employed by him in order to help fit them for employment in, or in connection with, the making of programmes to be included in his proposed service;'.

No. 433, in page 70, line 27, leave out 'and'.

No. 434, in page 70, line 28, after 'require', insert—
'(i)'.

No. 435, in page 70, line 31, at end insert
', and
(ii) as to the arrangements which the applicant proposes to make for, and in connection with, the transmission of his proposed service; and


(e) such other information as the Authority may reasonably require for the purpose of considering the application.'.

No. 436, in page 70, line 34, leave out 'subsection (3)(b) or (d)' and insert
'any of paragraphs (aa), (ba), (d) and (e) of subsection (3)'.

No. 437, in page 70, line 38, leave out subsections (6) to (8).

No. 438, in page 71, line 15, at end insert—
'(8A) The Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

(a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;
(b) the proposals submitted by him under subsection (3)(aa); and
(c) such other information connected with his application as the Authority consider appropriate.'.

No. 541, in page 71, line 15, at end insert—
'(8B) In this section "programme" does not include an advertisement.'.

No. 439, in page 71, line 18, after 'amount', insert 'of money'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 93

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 440, in page 71, line 24, after 'would', insert
'both—

(i) comply with any requirement specified under subsection (1)(b)(iii) or (iv) of section 92, and
(ii)'.

No. 441, in page 71, line 25, leave out 'section 92(3)(b)' and insert
'subsection (3)(aa) of that section'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 94

AWARD OF NATIONAL LICENCE TO PERSON SUBMITTING HIGHEST CASH BID

Amendments made: No. 442, in page 71, line 40, leave out
'the amounts specified in the cash bids submitted by'.

No. 443, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'are the same,' and insert
'have submitted cash bids specifying an identical amount which is higher than the amount of any other cash bid submitted in respect of the licence, then (unless they propose to exercise their power under subsection (3) in relation to the licence)'.

No. 444, in page 71, line 46, after 'may', insert
'disregard the requirement imposed by subsection (1) and'.

No. 445, in page 71, line 46, leave out 'other than the one who' and insert 'who has not'.

No. 446, in page 71, line 48, leave out 'do so' and insert
'award the licence to that applicant'.

No. 447, in page 72, line 1, leave out 'who submitted the highest bid,' and insert
'to whom (apart from this subsection) they would award the licence in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section,'.

No. 448, in page 72, line 4, leave out 'granted' and insert 'awarded'.

No. 449, in page 72, line 22, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

No. 450, in page 72, line 31, leave out
'the applicant who submitted the highest bid' and insert 'an applicant'.

No. 451, in page 72, line 32, leave out from 'if' to end of line 37 and insert
'that person had not made an application for the licence.'.

No. 453, in page 72, line 39, at end insert
', as soon as reasonably practicable after awarding the licence'.

No. 453A, in page 72, line 42, leave out
as soon as is reasonably practicable'.

No. 454, in page 72, line 48, leave out
'requirements of section 93(1)(a) and (b) were'
and insert
'requirement specified in section 93(1)(a) was'.

No. 455, in page 72, line 49 leave out 'and'.

No. 456, in page 73, line 2, leave out 'other than the one who' and insert 'who has not'.

No. 457, in page 73, line 4 at end insert
; and

(d) such other information as the Authority consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 95

HOLDER OF NATIONAL LICENCE TO GIVE SECURITY AGAINST FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED SERVICE

Amendments made: No. 733, in page 73, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20.

No. 734, in page 73, line 21, leave out from 'effect' to and of line 24 and insert
as if he had not made an application for the licence.'.

No. 735, in page 73, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) If at any time after a national licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

(a) that person indicates to the Authority that lie does not intend to provide the service in question, or
(b) the Authority for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide that service once the licence has come into force,
then, subject to subsection (4A)—

(i) the Authority shall revoke the licence,
(ii) the whole, or (if the Authority so determine) a specified part, of any security given by that person under this section shall be forfeited to the Authority, and
(iii) section 94 shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.
(4A) Subsection (4) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Authority have served on him a notice stating their grounds 'or believing that he will not provide the service in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the natters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 96

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF NATIONAL LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 736, in page 75, line 29, leave Jut from beginning to 'estimating' in line 31.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 97

APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 458, in page 75, line 42, after `licence', insert
`and specifying the closing date for applications'.

No. 459, in page 76, line 11, leave out 'and'.

No. 460, in page 76, line 12, after 'require', insert—
'(i)'.

No. 461, in page 76, line 15, at end insert
', and

(ii) as to the arrangements which the applicant proposes to make for, and in connection with, the transmission of his proposed service; and
(d) such other information as the Authority may reasonably require for the purpose of considering the application.'.

No. 462, in page 76, line 18, leave out 'or (c)' and insert (c) or (d)'.

No. 463, in page 76, line 18, at end insert—
'(3A) The Authority shall, at the request of any person and on the payment by him of such sum (if any) as the Authority may reasonably require, make available for inspection by that person any information furnished under subsection (2)(b) by the applicants for a local licence.'.

No. 464, in page 76, line 20, leave out '(a)'.

No. 465, in page 76, line 22, leave out from 'question,' to 'would' in line 24 and insert
`they shall, in accordance with subsection (1), publish a notice under that subsection relating to the proposed grant of the further licence to provide that service, unless it appears to them that to do so'.

No. 466, in page 76, leave out lines 28 and 29.

No. 542, in page 76, line 36, at end insert —
'(6) In this section and sections 98 and 99 "programme" does not include an advertisement.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 98

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO GRANT OF LOCAL LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 467, in page 76, line 39, leave out 'in particular'.

No. 468, in page 76, line 49, leave out 'and'.

No. 469, in page 77, line 4, at end insert
'; and

(d) the extent to which any application for the licence is supported by such persons.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 99

REQUIREMENTS AS TO QUALITY AND COVERAGE OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 470, in page 77, line 7, leave out 'quality and'.[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 100

PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS

Amendments made: No. 471, in page 77, line 30, leave out 'or local licence may' and insert 'licence shall'.

No. 543, in page 77, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) Any rules made by the Authority for the purposes of this section may make different provision for different cases or circumstances.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 101

POWER TO REQUIRE SCRIPTS ETC. OR PUBLICATION OF APOLOGY

Amendments made: No. 472, in page 78, line 24, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.

No. 473, in line 26, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.

No. 474, in line 32, leave out 'an' and insert 'a correction or'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 102

POWER TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL PENALTY OR SUSPEND OR SHORTEN LICENCE PERIOD

Amendment made: No. 412, in page 78, line 40, after `pay', insert within a specified period,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 103

POWER TO REVOKE LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 413, in page 80, line 21, leave out from 'particular,' to end of line 23 and insert
', or

(b) that, in connection with his application for the licence, the holder of such a licence withheld any material information with the intention of causing them to be misled,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 104

LICENSABLE SOUND PROGRAMME SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 80, line 41, leave out 'simultaneous'.

No. 184, in line 46, at end insert
', and whether the programmes are to be so conveyed for simultaneous reception or for reception at different times in response to requests made by different users of the service.'.

No. 544, in page 81, line 8, after 'who', insert
'does either or both of the following things, that is to say—

(a)'.

No. 545, in line 9, at end insert
`, or

(b) runs a telecommunication system which is so used,'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 106

ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 546, in page 81, line 35, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 547, in line 40, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 185, in page 82, line 13, after 'taken', insert
`for the purposes of this Part'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 107

LICENSING OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 548, in page 82, line 39, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 549, in line 40, leave out 'on' and insert 'within'.

No. 477, in page 83, line 8, leave out
'under this Part to provide any sound broadcasting'
and insert
`to provide a national'.

No. 478, line 12, leave out 'broadcasting' and insert `national'.

No. 186, in line 17, after 'facilities', insert 'reasonably'.

No. 187, in line 18, at end insert—
'(5A) Any person who grants to any other person access to facilities in accordance with conditions imposed under section (5) may require that other person to pay a reasonable charge in respect thereof; and any dispute as to the amount of any such charge shall be determined by the Authority.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 108

APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 188, in page 83, line 36, after 'licence', insert
'and specifying the closing date for such applications'.

No. 189, in line 40, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 41.

No. 190, in page 84, line 8, leave out 'and the deposit'.

No. 91, in line 9, leave out 'and (ii)'.

No. 550, in line 10, leave out from 'plan' to 'indicating' in line 11.

No. 551, in line 12, leave out 'he' and insert 'the applicant'.

No. 552, in line 14, leave out
'he is able to do so'
and insert 'known to the applicant'.

No. 192, in line 28, leave out subsections (6) to (9).

No. 193, in page 85, line 7, at end insert—
'(9A) The Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date specified in a notice under this section as the closing date for applications, publish in such manner as they consider appropriate—

(a) the name of every person who has made an application to them in pursuance of the notice;
(b) particulars of the technical plan submitted by him under subsection (3)(b); and
(c) such other information connected with his application as the Authority consider appropriate.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 109

PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR, AND AWARDING OF, LICENCES

Amendments made: No 553, in page 85, line 17, leave out
'he would be able to maintain his proposed service'
and insert
'the services proposed to be provided under the licence would be capable of being maintained'.

No. 194, in line 37, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) If at any time after an additional services licence has been granted to any person but before the licence has come into force—

(a) that person indicates to the Authority that he does not intend to provide the services in question, or
(b) the Authority for any other reason have reasonable grounds for believing that that person will not provide those services once the licence has come into force,
then, subject to subsection (5A)—

(i) the Authority shall revoke the licence, and
(ii) section 94 (as applied by subsection (3) above) shall have effect as if he had not made an application for the licence.
(5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in the case of any person by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection unless the Authority have served on him a notice stating their grounds for believing that he will not provide the services in question once his licence has come into force; and they shall not serve

such a notice on him unless they have given him a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the matters complained of.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 110

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 675, in page 86, line 32, leave put 'this' and insert 'his'.

No. 195, in line 40, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Mellor]

Clause 114

CERTAIN RECEIPTS OF AUTHORITY TO BE PAID INTO CONSOLIDATED FUND

Amendments made: No. 554 page 88, line 1, leave out ', satellite or additional service,' and insert
', or satellite service or any additional services,'.

No. 481, in page 88, line 9 at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as applying to my amount which is required by the Authority for the making of an adjustment in respect of an overpayment made by any person.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 115

FREQUENCY PLANNING AND GENERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Amendments made: No. 196, in page 88, line 24, leave out 'possible' and insert 'is reasonably practicable'.

No. 197, in page 88, line 26, after '(1)', insert 'or (3)'.

No. 198, in page 88, line 30, leave out from 'is' to `to' n line 31.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 118

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Amendment made: No. 555, in page 89, line 8, leave out granted by the Authority' and insert 'in force'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

SCHEDULE 7

SCHEME PROVIDING FOR DIVISION OF ASSETS OF IBA

Amendments made: No. 567, in page 161, line 38, leave out 'take effect' and insert
'be capable of coming into force in accordance with section—19(1) of this Act'.

No. 568, in page 162, line 4, at end insert—
'(4A) If, at any time after the Secretary of State has either—

(a) approved (either with or without modifications) a scheme under this Schedule made by the IBA, or
(b) himself made such a scheme,
but before the scheme has come into force in accordance with section 119(1) of this Act, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, he may determine that the scheme shall, on its so coming into force, come into force with such modifications as may be specified in his determination; and, in any such case, the scheme shall accordingly, on its coming into force, come into force with those modifications.'.

No. 482, in page 162, line 36, at end insert—
'(9) Nothing in this paragraph shall require a scheme under his Schedule to make provision with respect to any equipment which the IBA have agreed to dispose of in


pursuance of section (Functions exercisable by IBA before transfer date in connection with local sound broadcasting)(6).'.

No. 687, in page 163, line 47, at end insert—
'(4) Where, in consequence of any transfer made in accordance with a transfer scheme, all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a particular part of the IBA's undertaking are transferred to a relevant transferee—

(a) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer, whether or not they would otherwise so apply, and
(b) that undertaking shall accordingly (whether or not it would otherwise be so regarded) be regarded for the purposes of those Regulations as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 8

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISSOLUTION OF CABLE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 688, in page 167, line 40, at end insert—
'(3) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer to the Commission, by virtue of section 120(1), of the undertaking of the Cable Authority, whether or not they would otherwise so apply; and that undertaking shall accordingly (whether or not it would otherwise be so regarded) be regarded for the purposes of those Regulations as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 10

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXISTING CABLE SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 569, in page 182, line 17, leave out 'on' and insert
`at any time on or after'.

No. 570, in page 182, line 19, leave out 'date' and insert `time'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 122

INITIAL GOVERNMENT HOLDING IN NOMINATED COMPANY

Amendment made: No. 676, in page 91, line 33, after `(6)', insert
'Without prejudice to the generality of section 176(2),'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 11

THE BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 571, in page 189, line 31, leave out
`and the statement prepared for each financial year'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 129

FUNCTION OF BCC

Amendment made: No. 556, in page 94, line 21, leave out from 'service' to end of line 22.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 131

CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS

Amendments made: No 623, in page 96, line 2, at end insert—
'(aa) to provide the BCC with a visual or sound recording of the relevant programme or of any specified part of it, if and so far as the relevant person has such a recording in his possession;'.

No. 624, in line 3, leave out
'and any member or employee of the BCC'.

No. 625, in line 6, leave out 'possesses' and insert 'has in his possession'.

No. 626, in line 17, at end insert—
'(4A) For the purposes of this section, section 141 and section (Power to make copies of recordings), it shall be the duty of each broadcasting body to make a recording of every television or sound programme which is broadcast by that body and to retain that recording—

(a) where it is of a television programme, during the period of 90 days beginning with the broadcast, and
(b) where it is of a sound programme, during the period of 42 days beginning with the broadcast.'.

No. 627, in page 96, leave out line 20.

No. 628, in page 96, line 21, after 'corporate', insert 'to arrange for'.

No. 629, in page 96, line 22, after 'body', insert
`to attend the BCC and assist them in their consideration of the complaint'.

No. 630, in page 96, line 23, leave out from 'individual', to end of line 25 and insert
`to attend, or to arrange for one or more of his employees to attend, the BCC and assist them in their consideration of the complaint.'.

No. 631, in page 97, line 2, leave out 'and assist the BCC' and insert
`the BCC and assist them'.

No. 557, in page 97, line 13, leave out 'by whom it was so included' and insert 'providing the service'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 132

PUBLICATION OF BCC's FINDINGS

Amendments made: No. 632, in page 97, line 25, leave out
'in a form approved for the purpose by the BCC'.

No. 633, in page 97, line 27, leave out
`in a form so approved'.

No. 634, in page 97, line 28, at end insert—
'(2A) The form and content of any such summary as is mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) shall be such as may be approved by the BCC.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 135

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS COST OF BCC

Amendments made: No. 677, in page 98, line 27, leave out 'total'.

No. 678, in page 98, line 28, after 'or, insert
'that body, in respect of'.

No. 679, in page 98, line 33, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

No. 680, in page 98, line 42, after `(4)', insert 'Each regulatory body and'.

No. 681, in page 98, line 43, leave out `(1)(b)' and insert '(1)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 12

THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COUNCIL: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 689, in page 191, line 27, leave out 'directions' and insert 'direction'.

No. 648, in page 193, line 2, leave out 'The Council shall' and insert
'It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to'.

No. 649, in page 193, line 3, leave out 'and shall' and insert—
`(b) to'.

No. 650, in page 193, line 5, at end insert
'and

(c) to send copies of each such statement to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than 31st August next following the end of the financial year to which the statement relates.
(1A) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts sent to him by the Council and shall lay a copy of every such statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.

No. 651, in page 193, line 6, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 138

PREPARATION BY COUNCIL OF CODE RELATING TO BROADCASTING STANDARDS

Amendment made: No. 558, in page 100, leave out line 13.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 139

MONITORING BY COUNCIL OF BROADCASTING STANDARDS

Amendments made: No. 237, in page 100, line 39, after 'any', insert 'effects or'.

No. 238, in page 100, line 39, after 'attitudes', insert 'or behaviour'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 140

CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO BROADCASTING STANDARDS

Amendments made: No. 635, in page 101, line 24, leave out from 'made' to end of line 29 and insert—
'(a) where the relevant programme is a television programme, more than two months after the relevant date, or
(b) where the relevant programme is a sound programme, more than three weeks after that date,'.

No. 636, in page 101, line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) In subsection (3) "the relevant date" means—

(a) the date on which the relevant programme was broadcast by a broadcasting body or included in a licensed service, or
(b) where it has been so broadcast or included on more than one occasion, the date on which it was last so broadcast or included.'.

No. 637, in page 101, line 33, at end insert—
'(aa) that the matter complained of is the subject of proceedings in a court of law in the United Kingdom, or
(ab) that the matter complained of is a matter in respect of which the complainant has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law in the United

Kingdom, and that in the particular circumstances it is not appropriate for the Council to consider a complaint about it, or'.

No. 638, in page 101, line 35, leave out 'do so' and insert
`entertain, or proceed with the consideration of, the complaint.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 141

CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS

Amendments made: No. 639, in page 102, line 11, leave out from 'complaint,' to 'furnish' in line 15 and insert
'it shall be the duty of that person, if so required by the Council—

(a) to provide the Council with a visual or sound recording of the relevant programme or any specified part of it, if and so far as he has such a recording in his possession;
(b) to provide the Council with a transcript of so much of the relevant programme, or of any specified part of it, as consisted of speech, if and so far as he is able to do so;
(c) to provide the Council with copies of any documents in his possession being the originals or copies of any correspondence between him and the complainant in connection with the complaint;
(d) to'.

No. 640, in page 102, line 17, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

No. 559, in page 103, line 10, leave out
by whom it was so included'
and insert
providing that service'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 142

PUBLICATION OF COUNCIL'S FINDINGS

Amendments made: No. 641, in page 103, line 22, leave out
'in a form approved for the purpose by the Council'.

No. 642, in page 103, line 26, leave out
'in a form so approved'.

No. 643, in page 103, line 26, at end insert—
'(2A) The form and content of any such summary as is mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) shall be such as may be approved by the Council.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 143

POWER OF COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE OR COMMISSION ESEARCH

Amendments made: No. 644, in page 103, line 34, leave out
'undertake or arrange for other persons to undertake,'
and insert
'make arrangements for the undertaking of'.

No. 645, in page 103, line 36, leave out 'television or -adio programmes' and insert
'programmes to which this Part applies'.

No. 646, in page 103, line 41, at end insert—
'(2A) Arrangements made under subsection (1) shall secure that, so far as it is reasonably practicable, any research undertaken in pursuance of the arrangements is undertaken by persons who are neither members nor employees of the Council.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 146

ANNUAL REPORTS

Amendment made: No. 647, in page 104, line 22, leave out from '139(1)(a)' to end of line 24.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 147

INTERPRETATION OF PART VI

Amendment made: No. 560, in page 104, line 43, after '73(1)', insert 'or (2A)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 148

OBSCENITY IN PROGRAMME SERVICES: ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendments made: No. 561, in page 105, line 14, leave out 'is hereby repealed' and insert
'shall cease to have effect'.

No. 291, in page 105, line 18, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert
'programme included in a programme service'.

No. 292, in page 105, line 19, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert 'programme so included'.

No. 293, in page 105, line 25, leave out from 'section' to end of line 27 and insert
'programme" and "programme service" have the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 13

APPLICATION OF 1959 ACT TO TELEVISION AND SOUND PROGRAMMES

Amendments made: No. 300, in page 193, leave out line 32 and insert—
'relevant programme" means a programme'.

No. 301, in page 193, line 38, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.

No. 302, in page 194, line 3, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 303, in page 194, line 4 leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.

No. 304, in page 194, line 14, leave out 'television or sound'.

No. 305, in page 194, line 24, leave out 'television or sound'.

No. 306, in page 194, line 39, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.

No. 307, in page 194, line 44, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.

No. 308, in page 194, line 45, leave out from 'but' to end of line 47.

No. 309, in page 195, line 2, leave out from 'a' to end of line 4 and insert
'relevant programme is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of—

(i) drama, opera, ballet or any other art,
(ii) science, literature or learning, or
(iii) any other objects of general concern.'.

No. 310, in page 195, line 7, after '4', insert '(1) and'.

No. 311, in page 195, line 11, leave out 'television or sound' and insert 'relevant'.

No. 312, in page 195, line 16, leave out 'television or sound'.

No. 313, in page 195, line 18, leave out 'such a programme' and insert
'a programme which is to be so included.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 149

OBSCENITY IN PROGRAMME SERVICES: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 294, in page 105, line 37, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert
'programme included in a programme service'.

No. 295, in page 105, line 38, leave out 'television or sound programme' and insert 'programme so included'.

No. 296, in page 106, line 2, leave out from "'material"; to end of line 10 and insert
'the words from "and" onwards shall be omitted;

(b) after the definition of "prescribed sum" there shall be inserted—
""programme" and "programme service" have the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990;" and
(c) the word "showing," shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

No. 297, in page 108, line 30, leave out clause 153. —[Mr. Mellor.]

No. 298, in page 109, line 9, leave out clause 154. —[Mr. Mellor.]

No. 299, in page 109, line 42, leave out clause 155. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 157

OFFENCE OF ALLOWING PREMISES TO BE USED FOR PURPOSE OF UNLAWFUL BROADCASTING

Amendment made: No. 284, in page 111, line 15, leave out hovercraft.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 158

PROHIBITION OF ACTS FACILITATING UNAUTHORISED BROADCASTING

Amendment made: No. 283, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—
'"broadcasting station" means any business or other operation (whether or not in the nature of a commercial venture) which is engaged in the making of broadcasts;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 159

AMENDMENTS OF THE MARINE, &C., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) ACT 1967

Amendment made: No. 285, in page 113, line 13, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 28 and insert
'have effect subject to the amendments specified in Schedule [Amendments of the Marine, &amp;c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967] (which include amendments that impose further restrictions on broadcasting at sea and on acts facilitating such broadcasting).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 160

AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT RELATING TO PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE

Amendment made: No. 287, in page 114, line 18, leave out hovercraft'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 161

EXTENSION OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE POWERS IN RELATION TO UNLAWFUL BROADCASTING ETC.

Amendments made: No. 288, in page 115, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 2.

No. 289, in page 115, leave out lines 5 and 6.

No. 286, in page 115, line 15, leave out subsection (4). —[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 163

USE AS RIGHT OF SOUND RECORDINGS IN BROADCAST AND CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES

Mr. William Cash: I beg to move, amendment No. 709, in page 116, line 10, leave out 'or (3)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 710, in page 116, line 19, leave out '(a)' and insert after the first `the' `conditions and'.

No. 711, in page 116, line 21, leave out from 'him' to end of line 26.

No. 712, in page 116, leave out lines 27 to 33 and insert
`(3) A licensing body shall not be entitled to propose a restriction on needletime unless expressly requested by a licensee, provided that where a person who has expressly so requested such a restriction later requests a relaxation of a restriction as to needletime, the condition referred to in section 135A(1)(b) shall be deemed to be fulfilled.'.

No. 713, in page 116, line 34, leave out 'references' and insert 'reference'.

No. 714, in page 116, line 37, leave out from 'licence' to `failing' in line 37 and insert 'includes'.

No. 715, in page 116, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert
`needletime" means the amount of time a sound recording, or an aggregate number of sound recordings is included in a broadcast or cable programme service,'.

No. 716, in page 117, line 32, leave out from 'condition' to end of line 35 and insert
'intended to prevent or hinder unauthorised copying of the sound recordings, notice of which has been given to him by the licensing body,'.

No. 717, in page 118, line 19, leave out 'and' and insert
`(taking into account the provision of paragraph (d) below.)'.

No. 718, in page 118, line 24, leave out 'less than reasonable' and insert
`of an unreasonably low amount'.

No. 719, in page 118, line 26, at end insert—
`(c) if asked to do so by a person exercising the right conferred by section 135C shall determine whether the payment proposed by the licensing body in response to a request under section 135B(1) was of an unreasonably high amount and if it was may order the costs of the person on that application to be paid by the licensing body,
(d) shall not be entitled to treat as a relevant consideration when determining whether the terms of payment are reasonable, any increase in usage of sound recordings whether as a result of a removal of a restriction on needletime or otherwise and sections 129 and 134 (factors to be taken into account) are modified accordingly.'.

No. 720, in page 118, line 36, leave out from 'condition' to 'sound' in line 38 and insert
'intended to prevent or hinder the unauthorised copying of the'.

No. 721, in page 118, line 44, after 'and', insert '(i)'.

No. 722, in page 118, line 45, at end insert—
'or

(ii) if it is not reasonable the tribunal may order any costs of the applicant on the reference to be paid by the licensing body.'.

No. 723, in page 119, line 27, after licence', insert
'save as modified by section 135D(1)(d)'.

Mr. Cash: In one minute I shall celebrate my 50th birthday, on 10 May. That day in 1940 was a great day for this nation, but not on account of my birth.
The Minister is well acquainted with the arguments about needletime and I should be interested to hear his response to my amendments.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to say that, in view of the brevity of his speech, it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will indeed reach his birthday. Had he spoken for longer, that might have been doubtful. I shall filibuster for 30 seconds so that I can wish him a happy birthday.
This is a complex set of provisions, but my hon. Friend has, I think, raised points which need to be considered very carefully. I am happy to give him an undertaking that we shall consider them positively, and I will write to him. If our decision is favourable, it will be possible to make some of the changes that he wants in another place. We have not yet reached the time, but I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday anyway.

12 midnight

Mr. Jim Lester (Broxstowe): I hope that, despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, he will consider the full implications of amendments that have been moved so arbitrarily at such a late hour. As I am sure he realises, there is a good deal more to them, and those who oppose them would like an opportunity to say so in —or through—another place.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I echo what my hon. Friend has lust said. It is important for hon. Members to understand that a balance must be struck between the interests of the music industry and those of broadcasters. If the Government are to move at all, they must move with great deliberation. This is not the time to do more than put on record the fear of many Conservative Members that a move will be made to upset that delicate balance, so I merely urge hon. Members to resist the amendments.
We discussed these matters when we debated the Bill which became the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and no change was made then. Similar amendments were defeated. If these amendments were approved, or reintroduced in another place, broadcasters would have access to unlimited quantities of material without making payments which related in any way to their volume use. That would represent a serious change in the delicate balance between the rights of the music industry and those of broadcasters.
By all means let us debate the matter, but not at such late hour. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will mar in mind what I have said.

Mr. Cash: Having reached the age of 50, I beg to ask eave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 164

DUTY TO PROVIDE ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRAMMES

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 360, in page 119, line 49, at end insert
but the person providing the programme service will not be required to make available a complete schedule for any one week period more than ten days before the first day of that week'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 365, in schedule 14, page 196, line 23, leave out 'reasonable' and insert
'not less than three months'.

No. 366, in schedule 14, page 196, line 27, leave out 'reasonable' and insert
'not less than three months'.

No. 367, in schedule 14, page 196, line 30, at end insert—
`(c) deposit in a trust account in the names jointly of himself and the owner of the copyright in the information to which this Schedule applies an amount equal to the difference between the amount that would have been payable in the first three months of the licence in accordance with any proposal for terms of payment made pursuant to a request under paragraph 3(1)(a) and the amount which the publisher under paragraph 3(1)(b) has notified he is willing to pay in the first three months of publication, on terms that the owner of the copyright shall be entitled to have recourse to up to the whole of the amount so deposited and any interest thereon in satisfaction of any order of the Copyright Tribunal.'.

No. 576, in schedule 14, page 196, line 48, at end insert—
'4A.—(1) The requirement in paragraph 4 to make payments, and the requirements in paragraph 3 to give notice, do not apply in relation to any acts which consist only of the publication of the date, time and title of programmes.

(2) Where the publisher does any such acts as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) he shall (instead of making payments under paragraph 4) pay to the person providing the programme service a fee in respect of the reasonable administrative costs of supplying the information concerned in pursuance of section 164 of this Act.'.

No. 368, in schedule 14, page 197, line 11, at end insert ', and
(c) where the applicant has been exercising the right conferred by paragraph 4 for a period of not less than three months and no order as to the terms of payment has been made, may if asked to do so by the owner of the copyright in the information to which the Schedule applies order the applicant to deposit such further amount in the trust account as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.'.

Mr. Corbett: I am afraid that it is not my 50th birthday yet, but the Minister will recall our long discussions in Committee about the way in which the monopoly of the TV listings was to be broken up. Perhaps he will be kind enough to repeat what I think that he was trying to say in his press release of 24 April—that amendments will be introduced in another place which will, among other things, make the change in the monopoly ownership of programme listings in the early part of next year.

Mr. Gale: I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 576, which stands in my name.
There is a fear that the provisions in the Bill relating to the purchase of listings from broadcasting companies may lead to unseemly legal wrangling. The amendment seeks to simplify the issue in cases in which only the date, time and nature of the broadcast are involved. No one believes that that information should be provided at a cost to the broadcaster—by implication, secretarial time and effort will be required to provide publishers with such information—hence the second part of the amendment, which seeks to allow a small charge to be made. It would be much simpler to make the date, time and title of a television production available to publishers free of charge.

Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the Minister's announcement in his press release of 24 April about the detail of the

arrangements that he has in mind for ending the "duopoly" in television programme listings. He will recall that in Committee I expressed my concerns, and those of Independent Television Publications Limited, a subsidiary of Reed International plc. I understand that it is gratified by the Minister's proposals, and although they are not entirely ideal for the company it regards them as a fair compromise.
I am also anxious to hear from the Minister whether it is his intention to introduce amendments to the Bill in another place, and what he intends to do about the timing of the transition. The company naturally attaches much importance to that. The Minister's press release spoke of six months after Royal Assent being a reasonable time —a view that is generally accepted. If it is his intention to proceed along those lines, he will have achieved a satisfactory settlement.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) jested about his age. This provoked me, for the first time ever, to look it up. I discoverd with great horror that he is 56 years old, so we had better treasure him while we still have him. I hasten to assure him about the point that was worrying him, lest he overload his heart fretting about it. It is our intention to implement these arrangements about six months after Royal Assent, if that comes in the summer. However, one cannot guarantee that the last stages of the Bill will not go on into the spill-over period, so perhaps I should say within the first three months of the next year.
We have tried to do this sensibly, recognising the interests of the broadcasters, who want to ensure that the details of programmes are not disclosed so early that they can be of commercial use to other broadcasters, while allowing the development of sensible broadcasting magazines and others who could make use of this information.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I do not think that this should be free, because it is copyright material and we should not prevent those holding it from charging for it. Equally, I expect the charges to be relatively modest, and the copyright tribunal will have the right to adjudicate on that.
We have recognised the position of Reed International about which concern was expressed in Committee. It owns the copyright to ITV programmes until 1992, and we have said that it—rather than the broadcasters—can negotiate the fees involved. I discovered that the proprietor of Time Out lashed out—to use the phrase of the popular press —at these arrangements. No one has lashed out at them tonight, for which I am grateful, and I hope that most hon. Members think that they are sensible. Amendments to give effect to them will be introduced in another place.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said, although he has a habit of letting out Corbett family secrets. It has been helpful to have this quick exchange, and, in the light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 562, in page 120, line 47, leave out 'programme' and insert 'broadcasting'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 166

OFFENCE OF SUPPORTING PROSCRIBED FOREIGN SATELLITE SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 563, in page 122, line 43, after `possession', insert `for supply'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 168

RESTRICTIONS ON INCLUSION OF CERTAIN EVENTS

Mr. Lester: I beg to move amendment No. 282, in page 123, line 31, at end insert
`(1A) The Independent Television Commission shall do all that they can to secure that a listed event shall not be included live in any programme broadcast in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland unless that programme is capable of being received by a substantial proportion of the population of each such country.
(1AA) Where any person has acquired broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event, that person shall be under a duty to make those rights available on reasonable terms to persons providing a domestic satellite service, a non-domestic satellite service or a cable service.
(1AAA) The Independent Television Commission shall do all that they can to secure that the requirements of subsections (1A) and (1AA) are complied with.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 361, in page 123, line 31, at end insert—
`(1A) Section 14(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 shall continue to have effect subject to the following modifications—

(a) references to "the Authority" shall be construed as being references to the Commission, and
(b) the words "and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA" shall be deleted.'.

No. 601, in page 124, line 19, at end add—
`(8) The Secretary of State shall monitor the availability of major sporting or other events of national interest on terrestrial channels after the implementation of this Act and do all that he can to secure, if necessary, any changes required to ensure the availability of such events to the general public.'.

No. 602, in page 124, line 19, at end add—
'(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the availability of any extract from any sporting or national event for inclusion in any service providing a news programme and it shall be the duty of the person including such an event in their service to make such extracts available.'.

No. 369, in schedule 17, page 202, line 30, column 3, `after `Act', insert 'except for section 14(1)'.

Mr. Lester: I pay tribute to the stamina of the Minister, because this is his second day on the Front Bench, listening to the debates on the Bill. He has also listened carefully throughout the passage of the Bill, and made many sensible concessions. We have heard what he has done for deaf people, which is greatly to his credit. Through this amendment, I appeal to his logic, and his understanding of the broad mass of the people. As all hon. Members will know, the listed event was brought in by a Conservative Government because it was recognised that such events as the cup final, which many of us will be watching on television this weekend, the Grand National, the Derby, the all-England championships at Wimbledon and test

matches are not simply sporting events. They are events that belong to all of us—because we all have an interest in them. Whether we watch racing or not, we all take an interest in the Grand National.
It seems illogical that, having established the list of events, we should go on, as we have in the Bill, to take the risk that, when they come up for option, any one of them could be purchased by any one of the satellite companies, and used as a trading mechanism. They could say, "If you want to watch the cup final when the present system runs out, the only way to do so is to buy Sky or BSB equipment." That seems entirely wrong in the sense of what we seek to do by listing events.
In drafting the amendment, I have tried to be helpful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to the industry. I request in the amendment that no one should have the sole rights to any listed event unless he has a substantial viewing public. That means that either the BBC or ITV can buy the rights. It is suggested that they should have to make them available at reasonable cost to either of the satellite companies, or alternatively the satellite companies can buy the event, but only if they are in partnership with either the BBC or ITV. That means that the free market principles of my hon. and learned Friend are satisfied, and we ensure that the vast majority of the population can view these events live in the way they traditionally have.
I hope that neither amendment will appear to my hon. and learned Friend to be contentious. Both are intended to be helpful to him. I am on the side of the viewing public and not on that of any group which seeks to purchase or to use the events for commercial purposes.

Mr. Hattersley: I rise partly to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and mainly to draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 361, which was tabled by the official Opposition. It attempts to achieve the same effect as the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
The Minister has been so reasonable on so many issues throughout the consideration of the Bill that I hope that he will be helpful on listed events. It may be that neither the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe nor that which has been proposed by the Opposition is technically the best one to achieve the results that, I believe, most of the House wants to secure. If the Minister tells us that he wants to move towards our view and general public opinion on listed events, I shall be happy to withdraw the Opposition's amendment. I think that the principle should be stated once more, however, in the hope that the Minister, in his reasonableness, will accept it.
The 12 listed events are, I suppose, with the possible exception of the boat race, regarded by an overwhelming majority as national events. The boat race enables people to make claims, of course, about the universities that they once attended. Apart from that, the other 11 events are matters of general national interest. People watch them because they seem to be occasions that concern the whole nation and its interests and not only because of their sporting interests.
In our view and, if the opinion polls are to be believed, in the view of the entire nation, or the vast majority of it, it would be an absurdity if such national occasions were seen only by a small proportion of the population. I do not want to feed the neuroses of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) by suggesting that our concern is


restricted to one satellite company. It extends to every cable or satellite company that might bid for and obtain exclusive rights to one of the events and prevent the majority of the population from seeing it.
On Saturday, 12 million people or more will watch the cup final. Were the final the exclusive property of a satellite company, the proportion who would watch it would not be anything like that. If, however, the listed event system is changed, there is a clear possibility that a satellite company will bid for and obtain exclusive viewing rights over these events. It would be a sensible commercial decision to do so. It would be a loss leader that would encourage millions of people to buy a dish and install the necessary equipment on the basis that it was the only way in which to see the event.
The one occasion when I was tempted to buy a dish was when I discovered that a satellite company was broadcasting a test match live from the West Indies.

Mr. Cryer: But my right hon. Friend resisted the temptation.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend, who has known me for 30 years, knows that that is the sort of temptation that I resist. I confess that there was a moment when I felt that such a sacrifice of principle might be worth it to watch the ball-by-ball transmission of a test match from the West Indies.
Seriously, millions of people would be attracted to the new market if it was the only way that they could see, for example, the cup final. However, there would also be millions of others who would not. While it might be a commercial proposition for a satellite company, it is not the right proposition for the nation as several million people would be prevented from seeing an event that is central to the life of the country. Such events are of interest to men and women who are not usually interested in or likely to watch such sporting occasions. They are national events as well as listed events.
12.15 am
I understand that the BBC, concerned about the Government's enthusiasm for competition, has suggested a compromise. It is neither exactly that proposed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe nor that proposed by the Opposition. It suggests that the national networks—ITV and BBC—should bid against each other for the listed events, thereby ensuring that there is some competition. The price would be bid up so that the cup final, the Grand National or the Derby would receive a market-oriented price from the two national networks bidding against each other.
There should then be a second bidding—not a second coming—so that the satellite companies can obtain the rights to show those programmes on the Sunday after the event, late at night, as a recording. That would be a second opportunity for the listed event companies to obtain some revenue from selling a second right.
The BBC's suggested alternative is acceptable to the Opposition. All that we want is the prospect of all 12 listed events being available to every family with a television set. The scheme by which that is achieved is less important than the principle.

Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants satellite television excluded from the marketplace for the live transmission of listed events. He said that he

was tempted to buy a satellite dish—although he did not —to watch a match that neither of the other companies chose to show. The BBC has purchased Wimbledon, but it has not shown many matches for a long time. It is time that the cartel was broken.

Mr. Hattersley: I said earlier that I hoped that hon. Members would not see this issue simply in terms of protecting the interests of satellite television. We are trying to protect the interests of the consumer—the viewer. The simple fact is that, if a satellite company, whichever it may be, bid for the listed events—which it might well be in its commercial interests to do—and obtained the exclusive rights to show them, the inevitable result would be that several million British viewers would not have the opportunity to see events which previous Governments, of both persuasions, believed to be the property of the whole nation, and which should be available for viewing by the whole nation. Put in those terms, it is not easy to argue against the principle that the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I have attempted to outline.
By describing the compromise suggested by the BBC —which provides a place for satellite broadcasting—we want to secure the broadcasting opportunity. How it is done is much less important. If the Minister tells us that, in another place, he will ensure that listed events are universally available, we will gladly withdraw the amendment to give him time to think of the best way to meet that desirable objective.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has spoken effectively. I know that he is a genuine sports fan, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). So, too, am I. I shall be among those at the cup final and I am looking forward to the game.
This is not an issue that I regard as purely academic. I have thought about it quite deeply. I am sorry that my reputation for reasonableness will not, in the eyes of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, be much enhanced by my reply. However, I accept that it is one of those issues on which people of goodwill should find it possible to agree. It is not one about which there is any absolute truth.
The present arrangements give no absolute guarantee that a sporting event will be made available to everyone who wants to see it. At the moment there is a right to match and a non-BBC or ITV company could put in a large bid and both the BBC and the ITV could refuse to match it, in which case it would go exclusively to that other channel. There is no absolute right at the moment. We propose to maintain the prohibition on pay per view. which is the only way in which it is likely that a channel which is not a mainstream channel will be able to afford the kind of bid that they would have to put in.
There is no duty on sporting bodies to sell television rights and any one of the 12 could decide that it did not want to sell them and any right the public might have to see the event would fall by the way.
By the same token, the broadcasting organisations are placed under no obligation to carry the programmes. I fully accept that channels would want to show most of the events on the list. There may be genuine reservations about the boat race, although it has the advantage of starting in my constituency. Apart from that, one cannot make a big case for it, particularly now that Cambridge seem to be losing all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "]I knew


that I should get an appreciative cheer for that. There might be some doubt about whether the race should be shown.
Most hon. Members would agree that the sporting event which held the most interest for people in the past six months was the England-Scotland rugby game. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook shakes his head, but even a non-rugger fan like me got quite interested in it. Although I went to see my football team instead of watching the match, I was notionally interested in the rugby match.
None of the rugger internationals are listed events, which suggests that the list is somewhat arbitrary. I also think that all sports fans should be ambivalent about the list for this reason. I remember as a child going to events organised by the Dorset Schools Football Association, of which my father was the secretary. Those events were funded by the Football Association on the basis of the moneys they received from various activities, not least television rights to the cup final. The grass roots of sport are watered by media fees and I am not sure how justifiable it is for BBC and ITV to have an inside track to such events at a relatively low price if, as a consequence, the sports concerned cannot finance their activities as well as they might have been able to do. Sports fans must feel ambivalent about that.
While some companies may have to spend more for such rights, I do not think that the proprietors will sell to satellite stations because they have an interest in their sport having a shop window and major access to a lot of homes. The organisers of Wimbledon have stated that in their terms.
Also every time one watches a Wimbledon player drinking some substance—legal or illegal—out of a cardboard cup, whatever it might be, it alleges that it is a particular soft drink. No doubt it is not entirely coincidental that the label is on the drink as someone has paid a large amount of money for it. The sponsors will not welcome the prospect of that sporting event being seen only in a limited number of homes. Wimbledon said in its terms that it is not interested in a small audience.
It is not insignificant that all of the sporting bodies concerned have welcomed the freedom that the arrangements in the amendment give. It will allow a normal, sensible and rational set of decisions to be made about the broadcasting of events which will militate in favour of a large audience. It would be much better for that to be done in the normal way in which such transactions take place, rather than through some arbitrary imposition that has become increasingly irrelevant.

Mr. Hattersley: I wonder why the Minister is so optimistic about the organisers of sporting events wanting a larger audience as distinct from a smaller but more remunerative one. Although the Minister reminded us of what Wimbledon said, organisers of two major race meetings which get some coverage but are of no intetrest to me have written in strong terms saying that they want the right to get the biggest bid and the biggest income irrespective of the size of the audience. Why does the Minister think that Wimbledon will continue behaving in the way he described rather than behaving in the same way as the German lawn tennis association behaved? When Germany had world champions in the men's and women's

singles events at Wimbledon, only 4 per cent. of the German public could see the matches which were not shown on general German television.

Mr. Mellor: I understand that point, but for what it is worth my prediction is that Wimbledon will stick to its clear statement that it wants a mass audience in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that there is plenty of scope for many more games at Wimbledon to be shown. Games on the centre court and sometimes on court No. 1 are shown, but there is plenty of scope for other television organisations to cover the games on the other courts. It may just be bad luck, but whenever I have centre court tickets there is usually something much more exciting happening on court No. 16.
However, all good things must come to an end and it is 25 minutes past 12. Suffice it to say that I understand that there is a populist sentiment behind the case for retaining the limited list. I understand that we run the risk that at some point in future a major sporting event may go to a minority channel, but there is no continued justification for a fetter on the discretion of the sporting bodies to sell their product where they wish and common sense will Insure that the British public continue to have the opportunity to see those great events on live television.
I am sorry but I cannot assist my hon. Friend. I have given the matter intense consideration, but I cannot undermine the central pillars of the argument in favour of the major sporting bodies enjoying the same sensible and free rights of contracting as owners of important commercial products enjoy.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister was quite right to say that the England-Scotland rugby match was the most important sporting event of the year. For those of us who were there it seemed rather more like a rally against the poll tax, but we need not dwell on that.
The speeches have revealed two apparently irreconcilable points of view. That is why I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to amendments Nos. 601 and 502 in the names of my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 601 places a duty on the Minister to monitor the circumstances Following the enactment of the Bill. The truth or otherwise pf the assertions which have been made on both sides of the House is bound to be demonstrated in due course. For that reason, I hope that he will look with some favour on amendment No. 601, which allows the freedom for which he argues to be instituted but provides protection, if necessary, for those who are most keenly interested in sport.
Those who obtain the exclusive right to broadcast the events that we are discussing are extremely reluctant to make extracts of them available for news purposes and often particular sections of the total coverage are important for strictly news considerations. Amendment No. 602 is directed to that issue.
I hope therefore that the Minister will be willing to give the amendments some sympathetic consideration, even if le is not willing to accept the more radical proposals which nave been referred to in previous speeches.

Miss Kate Hoey: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said. If we are serious about finding ways of


making it impossible for a single satellite or cable company to acquire the sole right to national events, we must support amendment No. 361.
I do not share the Minister's confidence that many of our sporting governing bodies will consider the long term rather than the short term. Given the many difficulties facing sport and the paltry increase that once again the Sports Council received this year, I am afraid that, despite what ordinary members of that sporting body may want, the enormous amounts of money available for satellite companies to show national events will win.
12.30 am
Much has been said to the effect that the Bill is about competition and quality, but little about the choice of the majority of people in this country who do not have access to satellite or cable television. I am not being anti-satellite or anti-cable television. As BSB and Sky become more available, there will be partnership between the BBC and the satellite broadcasting companies. We were able to get cricket from the West Indies, and we will see more football.
There is room for partnership, but it is important that the listed events are available to everyone. This Saturday, the cup final will take place between Crystal Palace and Manchester United. Thousands of genuine supporters of those clubs will not be able to obtain a cup final ticket. People who have watched their matches week in and week out will not be able to get to Wembley. Many hon. Members will attend Wembley on Saturday who never go to football matches. I am not referring to the Minister because I know that he is a genuine football supporter.

Mr. Corbett: No, he is not; he supports Chelsea.

Miss Hoey: He supports Chelsea, and he is likely to be at the cup final.
It is important to elderly and house-bound people for national sporting events to be available on television. The Minister has not given way on this in any way, but I hope that even at this late stage he will consider some way of ensuring that our national events are available on television for everyone and not just a few people who can afford or who have access to cable or satellite.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I speak for a particular purpose. What we are really talking about again is the old profit motive—pouring money into certain people's pockets. It is a right old racket. Here we are talking about how it is happening with sport.
There is a sport known as the noble art. We have an all-party boxing group in the House. It has not been in operation very long, but it is a successful group. I am proud to be standing next to one of the stewards of the British Boxing Board of Control. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I, when we get the opportunity, regularly watch the noble art on BBC or ITV.
I am proud because I was lucky enough to see on BBC 1 Kirkland Laing win the European welterweight boxing championship. That is what it is all about. Millions of people could switch on BBC 1, while on ITV there was a potential heavyweight champion who won quite easily in the first round.
The problem is cable television because not everyone can afford it. That is where the unfairness comes in.

Mr. Skinner: And the ugly.

Mr. Haynes: That is right. There is the good, the had and the ugly. I remember the picture in The Star yesterday of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. He was likened to Clint Eastwood. We get Clint Eastwood films on TV and they also appear on that other channel that is piped in. The ordinary person in the street cannot see those films if they do not appear on BBC, ITV or Channel 4. I object to those films appearing on cable. However, that wonderful picture of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover appeared in The Star yesterday and he was likened to that marvellous cowboy actor. I felt right proud when I saw it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has an interest in the noble art just like me. The all-party group will continue and it is connected with the British Boxing Board of Control with a view to ensuring fair play. However, we also need fair play with the TV channels.
It is all right for the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). He has a real link with TV—he came from it. He protects the people who are raking it in day after day. Those people could not care less about the ordinary people in the street. There are many old miner pensioners in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Greg Knight: You are one yourself.

Mr. Haynes: Wait a minute. Was it the hon. Member for Thanet, North who said that I was one of them? If so, he is right. I will be 65 next March and I am proud of that. I am fighting fit, but I am not fit to go in the ring. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and my other colleagues are concerned about the quality of television that our pensioners will see back in our constituencies. We want them to have channels that they can switch on and watch without having to keep on paying through the nose for it.
I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who tabled amendment No. 361. However, I felt drawn into saying something about sport on TV. When the Labour party gets back into office, people who think that they can just walk into this country from the United States or wherever and set up their TV channels and make a fortune at the expense of the pensioners in our constituencies will have another think coming.
The Minister of State mentioned the boat race. That might be on his doorstep and many other people can enjoy the race because it is covered by BBC and ITV. However, there are many sporting events that people cannot see because they cannot afford it. We must be fair to the people who really cannot afford to pay. We must give them a fair deal. I have got that off my chest now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Lester: I suspect that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is busy trying to become a listed event himself in terms of his parliamentary performance. I do not know what fee he might attract for that. However, I will resist his strictures about Conservative Members, because I moved the amendment.
I was disappointed by the response from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, after having read the reports of all the debates in Committee. I crafted my amendment to deal with the points that he made in


Committee. I cannot conceive of any reason why one should not require that a substantial proportion of the population should be able to see any programme.
I have dealt with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The second part of the amendment says:
Where any person has acquired broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event, that person shall be under a duty to make those rights available on reasonable terms to persons providing a domestic satellite service, a non-domestic satellite service or a cable service.
One could not be fairer than that. It brings in the whole range of activities that people should be able to view.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will consider the proposition in the amendment. I do not consider it unreasonable. I recognise that, at this time of night, it does not make a lot of sense to divide the House on the amendment. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw it. However, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think again in time for the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 361, in page 123, line 31, at end insert—
'(1A) Section 14(1) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 shall continue to have effect subject to the following modifications—

(a) references to "the Authority" shall be construed as being references to the Commission, and
(b) the words "and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA" shall be deleted.'.—[Mr Hattersly]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 83.

Division No. 199]
[12.40 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, Dave


Darling, Alistair
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wallace, James


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Wareing, Robert N.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretlord)



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Ayes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mrs. Llin folding


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen





Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Nicholls, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Redwood, John


Gow, Ian
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gregory, Conal
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Harris, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hawkins, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stevens, Lewis


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thurnham, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Jack, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Janman, Tim
Trippier, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Kirkhope, Timothy
Watts, John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wells, Bowen


Knowles, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Yeo, Tim


Lilley, Peter



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Mans, Keith
Mr. David Lightbown.


Mellor, David

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 171

DUTIES OF BBC AS RESPECTS INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 698, in page 126, line 21, leave out subsections (3) to (9).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 606, in page 126, line 21, leave out
'The Director General of Fair Trading ("the Director")'
and insert
'the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC'.
No. 607, in line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert-—
'(4) the Chairman shall publish any report made by him under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate and for the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to any such report'.
No. 608, in clause 172, page 127, line 27, leave out clause 172.

Mr. Maclennan: This group of amendments returns to a subject that we debated exhaustively in Committee relating to the requirement that the BBC should achieve a target of 25 per cent. production of designated programmes by independent producers from 1993 Onwards. The amendments deal with the Bill's proposed requirement that that should be monitored by the Office of Fair Trading. The BBC has strongly argued that that is unnecessary and will duplicate its efforts in that role. The achievement of that target is on course. This year—the year up to March 1990—independent transmissions will be running at the agreed target of 360 hours. There is no evidence that the BBC is unwilling to meet the target, and the system of monitoring in place has been carried on since the BBC was set up.
The board of governors has responsibility for regulating the BBC, and it would be a remarkable departure from the board's historic role to give the task of detailed regulation of that requirement to the Office of Fair Trading. It is not clear why that has been done. It suggests a lack of confidence in the board of governors——

Mr. Skinner: What is the reason?

Mr. Maclennan: I have yet to hear the reason. I think it may be that the Minister simply wanted to demonstrate the Government's hostility to the BBC, but it is an odd way of doing so.
I shall not repeat the warnings uttered earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about the danger of tampering with the BBC in future. I take the point which has been made forcefully by the BBC—that, if this form of regulation is to be imposed upon it, it is odd that it is not being imposed upon independent producers as well. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.

Mr. Skinner: That is one way of putting it.

Mr. Maclennan: It is not an original way of putting it, but it is certainly a way of putting it. At this time of night, it is not too bad.
I shall not delay the House, because the arguments were extensively canvassed in Committee and the points were made forcefully. The BBC remains strongly hostile. When the BBC is as cost-conscious as it has to be, and is making savings that are leading to cuts in manning, to sackings and to a diminution of service, it is irresponsible to impose upon it the double duty of monitoring itself and providing the information to the Office of Fair Trading at its behest. It seems like a fifth wheel, which I hope the Government will remove.

Mr. Corbett: I do not intend to repeat the arguments which were made extensively in Committee. Very few of us can understand the logic behind the Government wanting to import the Director General of Fair Trading into this position. It looks very much as if the Government do not trust the BBC. If that is the case, it is unfair. There is no reason to assume that the BBC will not do what is asked of it, especially as it reports to the House annually.

Mr. Mellor: The answer is that no organisation can be above regulation. The governors of the BBC, in whom we have a great deal of confidence, are part of the BBC structure. They are the broadcasters. Although the initiative is going well, the relationship can be fraught with difficulty. The independent producers are entitled to expect that there should be an independent body charged by the House with responsibility for competition policy, monitoring the way in which these arrangements are carried through. It is no disrespect to the BBC, any more than it is disrespect to Ministers that we can be made subject to Parliament, to Select Committees or to the judiciary. It is part and parcel of the checks and balances in a sophisiticated society.
We went over the arguments in Committee. I am grateful for the forbearance of the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I cannot devise any novel arguments as to why we are doing this. We should not have to apologise for saying that there should

be objective assessment by an indpendent body charged with dealing with competition policy. That is the thinking behind the provision. We mean no disrespect to the governors of the BBC, but the governors are just that—the broadcasters in relation to the BBC. They cannot claim to stand sufficiently apart from the BBC to be accepted as entirely independent should any difficulties arise.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to press the amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has repeated the arguments which we heard before. They carry no greater weight than they did when they were first deployed. It remains mysterious that the Government should feel so vulnerable to unreasonable criticism from other quarters removed from the BBC that they feel they must impose a duty upon the governors. It is not a duty which will involve no cost, and it will involve a considerable amount of bureaucratic time. It is unlike the Government to go down that route for what we cannot regard as a practical reason. To this audience the Minister feels that he has made his point and that there is nothing more to say.
I hope that the Government will think again. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered in another place, where there are former senior figures from the BBC and from the regulatory authority. They will latch on to this point and reconsider it. For all the Minister's disclaimers about hostility to the BBC or lack of trust, there is no history whatever of the BBC not carrying out the statutory obligations imposed upon it by the House. If Parliament imposes upon the BBC an obligation to have a certain proportion of independently produced programmes, there can be no case on the basis of history for arguing that the BBC will not fulfil that obligation.
The Minister has baffled us by using what seems to be a piece of dogma but not a "cost less" piece of dogma. I hope that the matter will be taken up in another place and that we shall hear more about it in later debates on the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 614, in page 126, line 35, leave out 'relevant to' and insert
`appearing to him to arise out of, or to be conducive to,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 173

POWER TO GIVE BROADCASTING BODIES ETC. DIRECTIONS RELATING 'TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Cryer: I beg to move amendment No. 682, in page128, line 30, at end add
`such direction shall be given by order subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 362, in page 128, line 36, at end insert—
'(3)—Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), in relation to section 168, (Restrictions on inclusion of certain events), above, international obligations include Article 9 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television.'.

Mr. Cryer: This is a minor amendment to clause 173, which gives power to the Secretary of State to give directions relating to international obligations. The bodies to which directions can be given include the BBC, the ITC, the Welsh Authority, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council. Rather than simply


hand that power to the Secretary of State, it would be preferable to make some more formal provision. My amendment suggests that this should be done by statutory instrument. I have not made it an affirmative statutory instrument but one that is subject to annulment in the House, so that a prayer can be tabled against it. That means that, for those interested, there would be some opportunity to table a prayer and perhaps obtain a debate.
Amendment No. 362 shows the potential importance of the directions, because they will be to carry out international obligations, one of which is specified in the amendment. The legislation will apply to bodies such as the BBC, and rather than the Secretary of State being given powers that can be applied behind closed doors, even though there may appear to be a transparent relationship under international obligations, it would be better in cases where the Minister is giving directions that have to be followed for there to be some relationship to Parliament. Those are my reasons for tabling the amendment, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows that I have accepted parliamentary procedures for crucial parts of the Bill, not least the schedule 2 ownership arrangements, about which there will be an affirmative resolution. I have a problem in relation to the directive because of the number of occasions on which this might arise and whether the use of a statutory instrument would be a rather protracted way of dealing with what might be largely routine matters.
In deference to the hon. Gentleman, I should like to reflect further on the matters that he raises. He knows that is not a pious statement, because I have made changes as a result of reflection.
I am not suggesting that I can accept the amendment as it stands: I will, however, try to find out the likely volume of work involved, and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman to tell him that the matter can be further considered in another place.

Mr. Cryer: In view of the Minister's interesting comments and his commitment to examine the matter—and the possibility of a debate in the House of Lords—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 177

NOTICES

Amendments made: No. 683, in page 130, line 17, after `on', insert `or to'.

No. 564, in page 130, line 26, leave out
'for the purposes of this subsection the principal office of and insert in relation to'.

No. 565, in page 130, line 28, leave out 'is' and insert
`, the reference in paragraph (a) or (b) to its principal office includes a reference to'.

No. 414, in page 130, line 34, at end insert
', and shall be so published as soon as reasonably practicable after it is served.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 178

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Mr. Cryer: I beg to move amendment No. 684, in page 130, line 38, at end add:
'Such statutory instruments shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 686, in clause 181, page 132, line 45, at end insert—
'(5) Any order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Cryer: The amendment is intended merely to clear up any possibility that powers are being granted to the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders that will be exercisable by statutory instrument without reference to the House.
There is a procedure under which Ministers can make statutory instruments that are not subject to annulment or to any affirmative procedure: they are simply made by the Ministers, who will have no further parliamentary accountability. I know that the Minister is keen to avoid that in any event, but I want to give him the opportunity to make it clear that all the orders made under the Bill will be subject to a parliamentary procedure.
Government amendment No. 423, which the House has passed, allows an affirmative order procedure for clause 79. I should like an assurance that all the powers in the Bill with which we have dealt so far will be subject to a parliamentary procedure. If they are not, I trust that the Minister will accept the reserve power proposed in the amendment.
Clause 181(4) states:
An order under subsection (3) may in particular make provision for amending, repealing or revoking (with or without savings) any provision of an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act, or of an instrument made under an Act before the passing of this Act".
I take it that that is subject to the ejusdem generis rule —that is, that although couched in general terms, it relates specifically to broadcasting legislation, and is not a wider power. The Minister is being given a very wide power, and I am not entirely happy that it is being subjected only to the negative procedure, although I am pleased to note that the Government amendment ensures parliamentary accountability through the statutory instrument procedure.
The power is, in effect, one of the "Henry VIII" instruments, giving the Minister power to alter and amend primary legislation without the necessity for further legislation. I always think that that should be done by affirmative procedure, but the fact that the Government have tabled an amendment to provide for the negative procedure is at least an improvement on the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: We have tried to incorporate proper parliamentary procedures. The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's blanket amendment is that, by its very nature, its effect would be indiscriminate. As I said earlier, the schedule 2 issues are plainly important, and an affirmative resolution would be appropriate for them, but 'or others we consider the negative resolution procedure appropriate. In other instances, I wonder whether any parliamentary procedure would be appropriate: for


instance, we will make an order under clause 38, which defines "prescribed country", which will list the states that are signatories to the Council of Europe convention and the EC directive. I doubt whether anyone would seriously want to debate that list.
I have made these changes on a number of occasions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me a note of any point in the Bill that he thinks we have not got quite right. I guarantee that we shall give that the most serious consideration, because, as I have said before, any one of us who takes a Bill through Parliament should be first and foremost a parliamentarian. That is what the process is about. I should be happy to look at any note that the hon. Gentleman sent me to see whether we needed some further amendments.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister say something about the ejusdem generis point?

Mr. Mellor: I understand that it goes a bit further, because it paves the way for some of the changes that will be made by way of secondary legislation. I should be happy to drop the hon. Gentleman a note about this, giving him a rather more learned response than I am capable of as I get into my 11th hour of listening to the debate today.

Mr. Cryer: In view of the Minister's point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 179

PROGRAMME SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 685, in page 131, line 18, at end insert—
`(aa) a local delivery service (within the meaning of Part II of this Act);'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 180

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 343, in page 131, line 24, leave out "'advertising agency" and'.

No. 566, in page 131, line 33, at end insert—
'"modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions;'.

No. 344, in page 132, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 181

CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 686, in page 132, line 45, at end insert—
'(5) Any order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 16

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 690, in page 200, line 3, at end insert—
'1.—(1) In section 133(2)(a) (exemptions to restriction on disclosure of information), after "the Electricity Act 1989," insert "or the Broadcasting Act 1990,".'.

No. 691, in page 200, line 7, at end insert—

`RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT I976 (c.34)

. In section 41(1)(a) (exceptions to restriction on disclosure of information), after "the Electricity Act 1989" insert "or the Broadcasting Act 1990".

COMPETITION ACT I98o (C.2I)

. In section 19(3) (exceptions to restriction on disclosure of information), after paragraph (m) insert—

"(n) the Broadcasting Act 1990.".'.

No. 652, in page 201, leave out lines 16 to 48 and insert—
'"(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done in pursuance of—

(a) a condition which, in accordance with any provision of the Broadcasting Act 1990, is included in a licence granted under Part I or III of that Act; or
(b) a direction given under section 101(2) of that Act (power of Radio Authority to require production of recordings etc.).

(3) Copyright is not infringed by—

(a) the use by the Independent Television Commission or the Radio Authority, in connection with the performance of any of their functions under the Broadcasting Act 1990, of any recording, script or transcript which is provided to them under or by virtue of any provision of that Act; or
(b) the use by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission or the Broadcasting Standards Council, in connection with any complaint made to them under that Act, of any recording or transcript which is provided to them in accordance with section 131(4) or (as the case may be) section 141(3) of that Act.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 17

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 314, in page 202, column 3, leave out line 23 and insert—



`In section 51, subsection (6)(a) and, in subsection (8), in the definition of "material" the words from "and" onwards, and the word "showing,".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

New Schedule

`AMENDMENTS OF THE MARINE, &C., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) ACT I967

1.—(1) Section 2 (prohibition of broadcasting from marine structures) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) for "external waters or in tidal waters in the United Kingdom" substitute "any waters to which this section applies".

(3) After subsection (2) insert the following subsection—
(3) This section applies to—

(a) tidal waters in the United Kingdom;
(b) external waters; and
(c) waters in a designated area within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964."

2. After section 2 insert the following section—

Unlawful broadcasting from within prescribed areas of the high seas

2A.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, it shall not be lawful to make a broadcast which—

(a) is made from a ship other than one registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while the ship is within any area of


the high seas prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State; and
(b) is capable of being received in, or causes interference with any wireless telegraphy in, the United Kingdom.

(2) If a broadcast is made from a ship in contravention of subsection (1) above, the owner of the ship, the master of the ship and every person who operates, or participates in the operation of, the apparatus by means of which the broadcast is made shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who procures the making of a broadcast in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) The making of a broadcast does not contravene subsection (1) above if it is shown to have been authorised under the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

(5) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

3. In section 3 (prohibition of acts connected with broadcasting from certain ships and aircraft, and from marine structures outside the United Kingdom)—

(a) in subsection (1), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"; and
(b) after subsection (1) insert the following subsection—

"(1A) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to any broadcast made in contravention of section 2A(1) of this Act, and subsections (1)(c) and (d) above do not apply to structures or other objects in waters falling within section 2(3)(c) of this Act."

4. After section 3 insert the following section—

Prohibition of management of stations broadcasting from ships, aircraft etc.

3A.—(1) Any person who, from any place in the United Kingdom or external waters, participates in the management, financing, operation or day-to-day running of any broadcasting station by which broadcasts are made—

(a) in contravention of sections 1, 2 or 2A(1) of this Act, or
(b) as mentioned in section 3(1)(a) of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) In this section "broadcasting station" means any business or other operation (whether or not in the nature of a commercial venture) which is engaged in the making of broadcasts."

5.—(1) Section 4 (prohibition of acts facilitating broadcasting from ships, aircraft etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from any structure or other object (not being a ship or aircraft) in waters falling within section 2(3)(c) of this Act, he does the act on that structure or other object within those waters; or
(ab) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from a ship in contravention of section 2A(1) of this Act, he does the act in that ship within any such area of the high seas as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that provision; or".

(3) In subsection (3)(e), for "or 2(1)" substitute ", 2(1) or 2A(1)".

6.—(1) Section 5 (prohibition of acts relating to matter broadcast from ships, aircraft etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—

(aa) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from any structure or other object (not being a ship or aircraft) in waters falling within section 2(3)(c) of this Act, he does the act on that structure or other object within those waters; or
(ab) where paragraph (a) above does not apply but the broadcasts in question are made, or are to be made, from a ship in contravention of section 2A(1) of this Act, he does the act in that ship within any such area of the high seas as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that provision; or".

(3) In subsections (3)(a) and (4), for "or 2(1)", in each place where those words occur, substitute ", 2(1) or 2A(1)".

7.—(1) Section 6 (penalties and legal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), for "three" substitute "six".
(3) In subsection (5), for "on behalf or', in both places where those words occur, substitute "with the consent of the Secretary of State or".

8. After section 7 insert the following section

Powers of enforcement in relation to marine offences under this Act.

7A.—(1) The following persons are enforcement officers for the purposes of sub-section (5) below—

(a) persons authorised by the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred by this section;
(b) police officers;
(c) Commissioned officers of Her Majesty's armed forces;
(d) officers Commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and
(e) persons not falling within any of the preceding paragraphs who are British sea-fishery officers by virtue of section 7(1) of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968;

and in this subsection "armed forces" means the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the regular army and the regular air force, and any reserve or auxiliary force of any of those services which has been called out on permanent service, or called into actual service, or embodied.

(2) If an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting—

(a) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed by the making of a broadcast from any ship, structure or other object in external waters or in tidal waters in the United Kingdom or from a ship registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while on the high seas,
(b) that an offence under section 2 of this Act has been or is being committed by the making of a broadcast from a structure or other object in waters falling within subsection (3)(c) of that section, or
(c) that an offence under section 2A of this Act has been or is being committed by the making of a broadcast from a ship,
and the Secretary of State has issued a written authorisation or the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5), below in relation to that ship, structure or other object, then (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) the officer may, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, so exercise those powers.

(3) If—

(a) the Secretary of State has issued an authorisation under subsection (2) above for the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5) below in relation to any ship, structure or other object, and
 (b) an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 4 or 5 of this Act has been or is being committed in connection with the making of a broadcast from that ship, structure or other object,
then (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) the officer may, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, also exercise those powers in relation to any ship, structure or


other object which he has reasonable grounds to suspect has been or is being used in connection with the Commission of that offence.

(4) Where—

(a) an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 4 or 5 of this Act has been or is being committed in connection with the making of a broadcast from a ship, structure or other object, but
(b) an authorisation has not been issued under subsection (2) above for the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (5) below in relation to that ship, structure or other object,
then (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) the officer may, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, nevertheless exercise those powers in relation to any ship, structure or other object which he has reasonable grounds to suspect has been or is being used in connection with the Commission of that offence if the Secretary of State has issued a written authorisation for the exercise of those powers in relation to that ship, structure or other object.

(5) The powers conferred by this subsection on an enforcement officer in relation to any ship, structure or other object are—

(a) to board and search the ship, structure or other object;
(b) to seize and detain the ship, structure or other object and any apparatus or other thing found in the course of the search which appears to him to have been used, or to have been intended to be used, in connection with, or to be evidence of, the Commission of the suspected offence;
(c) to arrest and search any person who he has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed or is committing an offence under this Act if—

(i) that person is on board the ship, structure or other object, or
(ii) the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person was so on board at, or shortly before, the time when the officer boarded the ship, structure or other object;
(d) to arrest any person who assaults him, or a person assigned to assist him in his duties, while exercising any of the powers conferred by this subsection or who intentionally obstructs him or any such person in the exercise of any of those powers;
(e) to require any person on board the ship, structure or other object to produce any documents or other items which are in his custody or possession and are or may be evidence of the Commission of any offence under this Act;
(f) to require any such person to do anything for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this subsection, including enabling any apparatus or other thing to be rendered safe and, in the case of a ship, enabling the ship to be taken to a port;

(g) to use reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising any of those powers;
and references in paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e) above to the ship, structure or other object include references to any ship's boat or other vessel used from the ship, structure or other object.

(6) Except as provided in subsection (7) below, the powers conferred by subsection (5) above shall only be exercised in tidal waters in the United Kingdom or in external waters.

(7) Those powers may in addition—

(a) in relation to a suspected offence under this Act committed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands while on the high seas, be exercised in relation to that ship on the high seas;
(b) in relation to a suspected offence under section 2 of this Act committed on a structure or other object within waters falling within subsection (3)(c) of that section, be exercised in relation to that structure or other object within those waters; and
(c) in relation to a suspected offence under section 2A of this Act committed in a ship within any such area of the high seas as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section, be exercised in relation to that ship within that area of the high seas.

(8) Any person who—

(a) assaults an enforcement officer, or a person assigned to assist him in his duties, while exercising any of the powers conferred by subsection (5) above or intentionally obstructs him or any such person in the exercise of any of those powers, or
(b) without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to comply with any such requirement as is mentioned in paragraph (e) or (f) of that subsection,
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

(9) Neither an enforcement officer nor a person assigned to assist him in his duties shall be liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done in purported exercise of any of. the powers conferred by subsection (5) above if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and that them were reasonable grounds for doing it.

(10) Nothing in this section shall have effect so as to prejudice the exercise of any powers exercisable apart front this section.

(11) Any reference in this section, in relation to a person assigned to assist an enforcement officer in his duties, to the exercise of any of the powers conferred by subsection (5) above is a reference to the exercise by that person of any of those powers on behalf of that officer.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Bill to be read the Third time this day

PETITIONS

Local Government Finance

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is never too late to introduce a petition against the poll tax, and I have three good petitions here, although none of them has been signed by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The poll tax is the worst general taxation system that has ever been introduced into any western democratic system.
The first petition is from constituents in Dronfield. It reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the Residents of Dronfield, North East Derbyshire sheweth that legislation to introduce a poll tax will
Place an unbearable financial burden upon your petitioners.
Subsidise wealthy people at the direct expense of others. Create fear and despondency amongst those who cannot pay.
Disenfranchise many who will be frightened to claim their right to vote.
Attack the civil liberties of your petitioners by opening up areas of sensitive and private information to the Poll Tax Registrar.
Destroy the democratic freedom of your petitioners to elect local Councillors who can act with a degree of independence from the power of the central state.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to repeal the Poll Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. This is signed by Mrs. Wendy Bower of 22 Lundy Road, Hill Top, Dronfield, and 468 other people, whose signatures she collected.
A similar petition comes from the residents of Hollingwood, Chesterfield, collected by a Mr. R. Dixie, of 52 Laburnum street. It also stresses points such as the loss of the franchise, which is quite substantial. It might lead to as many as half a million people losing the right to vote in England and Wales alone, according to the statistics that I have been collecting.
The third petition is worded differently, and is from three young women who, in the week before Easter, were ramped on the green outside Norman porch, where they were collecting signatures against the poll tax.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Chris Carter, Aileen Ryder and Janet Woods sheweth that the implementation of the poll tax is completely against the will of the vast majority of the people. People will stand up against this tax precisely because they live in a free and democratic country.
Even in the heart of Westminster the overwhelming majority of people we talked to are against this tax. Many freely admitted to being ex-Tory voters who could well afford it but opposed it because it is so unfair and unjust. In our own areas people are frightened and angry because so many cannot afford this tax. Families will be driven into poverty and more and more people, particularly young people, will be 'reed to live on the streets.
The Government's claims about increased accountability have been completely discredited by their poll tax cutting plans. People are well aware that the purpose of this tax is to take from the poor and give to the rich. As Gandhi said, "The worst violence is the violence of poverty." Consequently, we believe, people will not be deterred by the aggression of the authorities, whatever form it takes, because the violence of the poll tax must be stopped.
Wherefore your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray.
That is signed by Aileen Ryder of Lewisham, Janet Woods of Woolwich and Chris Carter of Plumstead.
I beg leave to present the petitions.

To lie upon the Table.

Haemophilia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. William McKelvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about an important and urgent issue. I refer to those suffering from haemophilia and the further difficulties that they have encountered. I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Health and congratulate him on his recent appointment. He is to face his baptism at the Dispatch Box, and at this time of the morning it is hardly likely to be an exciting debate. It is probable that the temperature will not rise, but it is an extremely important debate. I know that the Minister will have done his homework. I am not here to harangue or harass a new Minister but, as I have said, the issue is important. I hope that the Minister will make a progressive response to my submissions.
The debate was prompted by a family in my constituency. I refer to Donald and Margaret Baird and their two sons, Ian and Walter. The tragedy that surrounded that family is directly connected with the fact that the two sons are both suffering from haemophilia and both are HIV-positive. I am sure that it will help the Minister in his deliberations if I trace the difficulties that haemophiliacs have faced over recent years. There are over 5,000 people who suffer from haemophilia in the United Kingdom. Two thousand of them are seriously affected by the disease in their daily lives and receive treatment by means of blood products to enhance the ability of their blood to clot. There are 1,200 who have been identified as HIV-positive. I think that the House will agree that it is now recognised by all authoritative bodies that these people became infected through the use of contaminated blood products provided to them by the NHS, which were mostly obtained from America.
The Haemophilia Society, to which I am indebted for the information that I am imparting to the House, has consistently campaigned for out-of-court compensation for the victims of this disaster since it was first recognised. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved in the campaign. The national campaign resulted in an ex gratia cash payment of £10 million in 1987. That was followed by a further £24 million last December. That has been distributed to victims and their families under the auspices of a newly created trust fund, the Macfarlane Trust.
Everyone realises that at the time of those payments the Government made it clear that the money was intended not as compensation but as a special payment made on the basis of a claim for the special suffering and need of the victims. The sum so far given amounts to £20,000 to £30,000 per person. That falls well short of a realistic figure for compensation for livelihood and life that would be acceptable to members of the Haemophilia Society. In the absence of real compensation, a significant proportion of people with haemophilia and HIV have taken out court cases aganist their local regional health authorities and, in some cases, the Department of Health.
The current position is not a happy one. The court cases are being substantially delayed. In England, the earliest possible start date is January 1991, but there are already strong signs that even that distant date may be too

optimistic. In Scotland, the position is even worse. It is not yet possible to obtain an estimate for the start of any court procedures. Some 50 people in Scotland are taking out court cases against their individual health authorities. However, it appears that much of the delay in starting proceedings stems from difficulties with applications for legal aid. Very few people in Scotland have obtained legal aid so that they can begin the process of going to court.
For whatever reason, the Scottish Legal Aid Board is applying somewhat more stringent standards of documentation than its English counterparts before it grants legal aid. That is causing the current delay. It is an issue that I intend to take up privately. It may have something to do with the vagaries of the different legal systems, but any delay has serious and devastating consequences for those attempting to bring the matter to court. It is vital that we all recognise that delay must be prevented.
While the delays continue, those unfortunate people with haemophilia and HIV continue to die. By February 1990, 118 people had died. The longer they wait to go to court, the greater will be the number of people who die. Of those 118 people, 11 died between November 1989 and February 1990. It must be all too obvious to hon. Members that by the time the cases come to court many more will have died. Given that, the Haemophilia Society and those who support its views have reaffirmed that an out-of-court settlement is the only possible humanitarian solution to a problem that will be with us for some time.
I was prompted to request this debate by a letter from Donald Baird. He has been in contact with me for a number of years. I have not sought in any way to make publicity out of this case, and I am sure that other hon. Members do not intend to do so. It is a tragic and difficult case of two boys with haemophilia who were injected by their parents—the injections took place at home—and who have subsequently been found to be HIV positive. That was a terrible double tragedy, but they have now been informed that the elder boy, Ian, who is now 19, has full-blown AIDS. It is virtually the pronouncement of a death sentence.
I would find it difficult to read the whole of the letter to the House because it is emotional and private, but I have given a copy to the Minister, and I am sure that he will understand why it is impossible for me to quote all of it. Nevertheless, the father can express in a few words, and much more elequently than I could, the case that he wishes me to put to the House. He writes:
Dear Willie, It is with a heavy heart I write to you, to confirm the fact that my son Ian has started treatment for the full blown AIDS. Although always a probability, it was such a shock that some three weeks passed before we could speak about it.
Further on in the letter he sadly says:
I cry alone at night as I pray for them, and I think every day that passes I also die a little with them.
Why oh why, can this government not realise that time is something my sons—people like them—do not have. Their insistence that the courts must settle the matters of fault and compensation means that more and more haemophiliacs will not live to see justice being done.
It is a very moving letter, as I am sure hon. Members appreciate.
There are steps that the Government can take. The general secretary of the Haemophilia Society wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who was a Minister in a previous Labour Government which dealt with a similar problem. In that role, David Watters, the general secretary


of the society, had asked him to approach the Prime Minister with the idea of setting up an inquiry into the matter through the office of a retired ombudsman. The Labour Government did exactly that for the outstanding thalidomide cases. Sir Anthony Barraclough could be appointed to resolve the dispute between the Government and the people with haemophilia who have contracted HIV in the course of NHS treatment. The Prime Minister is aware of the matter.
Perhaps when the Minister speaks to the Secretary of State he will bring the issue to his attention. That would be a positive step. Sir Anthony Barraclough is much respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all establishments outside the House. If he were to be given that opportunity, he could perhaps draw up grounds for a settlement, and that would end the matter more quickly than it could be ended by going to court, if it can ever be settled in court. In many cases—particularly in Scotland—defendants have to prove negligence by the health boards and that will be difficult.
The third issue that we should consider is that the Macfarlane Trust has already spent most of its money.
In cases such as that of the Baird family, when a young man has been given what is virtually a death sentence, will the Minister arrange for the Macfarlane Trust to reconsider the case? The figures that have been mentioned to me by lawyers—not necessarily to be considered as the final figure that should be accepted in settlement—if the case went to court in Scotland are in the region of £80,000 to £90,000 per person. If that sum was made available to the Baird family at the moment, it would ease much of their grief and it would give the opportunity for the boys, and Ian in particular, to live a far better life for whatever time they have left. I ask the Minister to consider that seriously.
There is an opportunity for the Government to increase the funds to the Macfarlane Trust, to ensure that they are paid out as quickly as possible and to examine the position in general and the particular point that has been raised with the Prime Minister with a view to setting up an inquiry to settle the case.
It seems to me that a totally unfair battle is being fought. The burden of proof is on the victims of medical accidents: they have to prove negligence. Although I cannot ask the Minister, particularly in his first days of office, to promote the legislation that would be required to provide terms whereby medical accidents could be settled through compensation, which is an extremely long and complicated process, perhaps he will ask the Government to give the matter some thought along those lines so that we can correct the imbalance.
In this and other cases, young people cannot take their cases to court. They cannot get legal aid, and even if they get their case to court there is no telling how long it will take to settle, if they get settlement. Some people are gambling their settlements from the Macfarlane Trust to get the matter resolved in court before they expire.
It is a David and Goliath situation: the Government represent Goliath but David is unarmed. I ask the Minister to give the points I have raised serious consideration. Although I cannot expect definitive answers from the

Dispatch Box tonight, perhaps he could give the House an undertaking that at least the matter is back on the agenda and, hopefully, we can make some progress.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on taking the opportunity of an Adjournment debate this evening to raise a matter of real concern to his individual constituents and to the 1,200 people who are affected by this tragedy. May I also thank him for his best wishes on my appointment. There can be no better illustration than tonight's debate of the fact that I shall need those best wishes and the best wishes of anyone else who feels able to offer them.
The House will understand that it is a special moment for any Member of Parliament when he is asked to become a Minister. It is perhaps understandable that there is a certain amount of celebration and partying. However, the knowledge that I had to reply to tonight's debate in my first week in the Department has brought me up short. We all know in the abstract that a Minister's life is not all roses, but there can be no sharper illustration of the difficult issues that Ministers have to face than the particular human tragedy represented by the case that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to our attention.
The hon. Gentleman sent me Mr. Baird's letter, which is quite as emotional as he described it. It underlines the special human tragedy represented by those events. Against that background, it would be totally inappropriate for me to begin with a recital of what has already happened and the Government's position. It is appropriate to begin simply by recognising that it is a tragedy and nothing that I can say from the Dispatch Box will change it. I hope to alleviate by actions and words some of the problems and effects of that tragedy, but the tragedy itself will remain and nothing that we say in the House will change its essential nature.
I remind the House that the Government's sympathy for those affected by these tragic events has been given practical expression. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, in November 1987 we announced an ex-gratia payment of £10 million to fund the Macfarlane Trust. That money has allowed the trust to give help to families in particular need by way of grants for a wide variety of purposes and through regular payments. Up to 31 March this year, the trust had paid out almost £1·7 million in one-off grants and almost £1·6 million in regular payments. Those payments have helped to ease the financial worries of the Families who have received them.
Furthermore, the Government announced substantial extra help on 23 November last year. Under those arrangements, each infected individual is entitled to a lump sum of £20,000. With the help of the trustees of the Macfarlane Trust, arrangements have been made to administer those payments, and I am pleased to say that payments totalling almost £24 million have been made.
In addition to that money, the Government have made regulations to ensure that the payments from the trusts do not affect entitlement to income support, family credit or housing benefit. Payments, therefore, are genuinely additional money to those affected, and there is no question of our taking with one hand what we are seeking to give with the other.
I recognise that much hard work has been done by the trust in making payments, particularly on the £20,000 scheme, in such a short time. It is right to place on record the Government's thanks, and I am sure the thanks of the whole House, for the efforts represented by that action.
I should like to refer to a written answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in announcing the £20,000 scheme. He said:
The Government accept the need to ensure that the fund has adequate resources both to meet its existing commitments and to give more generous help to families in particular need. We will be discussing further with the trust how these objectives should be met."—[Official Report, 23 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 12.]
It is clear that when announcing the £20,000 scheme Ministers accepted the need to ensure that the original Macfarlane Trust had adequate resources both to meet its existing commitments and to enable it to give more generous help to families in particular need.
Naturally, the first priority of all concerned has been to implement the £20,000 scheme as quickly as possible. As that has been achieved, we should be following up my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to discuss with the Macfarlane Trust the best way of providing additional targeted help.
I should stress that, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, the £34 million total provided to the two Macfarlane Trusts represents ex-gratia payments. They are not intended as compensation because in this country, under successive Governments, there has never been a scheme of no-fault compensation for those damaged by medical treatment.
The case for alternative means of compensating those who suffer from medical accidents was carefully considered by the Royal Commission on civil liability and personal injury, which reported in 1978. It decided against introducing a scheme of no-fault compensation. The system remains that those seeking compensation should pursue the matter through litigation. A number of haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus, as the hon. Gentleman said, are now doing just that. I am sure that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on issues that are before the courts.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the timetable for the hearing. He may be aware that yesterday the court decided that the main hearing of the English case should take place in March 1991. The Scottish case will, I imagine, follow that. He asked about entitlement to legal aid in Scotland. I shall look into that and write to him.
The hon. Gentleman said that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has written to the Prime Minister seeking to establish an inquiry as a means of resolving the compensation issue. He will obviously receive a considered reply from my right hon.
Friend the Prime Minister. However, the right hon. Gentleman tried to draw a parallel

between this case and the thalidomide case established in the late 1970s. That is not a precise parallel because in that case there was no dispute about the acceptance of liability on the part or the Distillers company. The simple question was whether there was a causal connection between the children affected on list Y and the smaller group for whom Distillers had accepted liability earlier. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the defendant does not accept any claim of liability in the negligence action.

Mr. McKelvey: I was not trying to draw a parallel between the cases. I was just saying that the Labour Government took the opportunity to set up an inquiry. I was not asking for something that we had not done or which could not be done. There is still the possibility that the Government will set up an inquiry, particularly because the people must in effect sue the NHS or the various health boards. The Government have a responsibility to solve the matter as quickly as possible if an inquiry can be set up.

Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will obviously respond to the specific point about an inquiry. The much narrower point that I was trying to make was that there is not a precise parallel between the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman and the Distillers-thalidomide case. Against that background, the Government are entitled to claim a degree of credit for having recognised the special circumstances of haemophiliac victims of this tragedy. Thirty four million pounds is not an insignificant sum of money to be made available to provide financial assistance.
To sum up, the compensation that many of the haemophiliac victims are pursuing is a matter for the courts. We believe that the measures that we have already taken demonstrate the Government's willingness to do what they properly can to meet the special needs of haemophiliacs with the AIDS virus. We have already made available substantial sums of money and we have accepted also—and to some degree this responds to one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman—the need to discuss with the Macfarlane Trust how more generous help can be provided for families in particular need.
I am grateful for another opportunity to discuss this important topic. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, while our means may differ, the Government share with him the proper human desire to respond to this very human tragedy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Two o'clock.